# Liabilities for gun free zones **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 18, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249 "2016-07-18T21:01:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/21 "2016-07-19T05:24:47Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Is a Tennessee shopkeeper liable if they DO allow guns on the premises, and an idiot shoots somebody, whether accidentally or maliciously? (See, for example, the toddler [who shot his mother in the head in an Idaho Wal-Mart](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/30/woman-shot-with-own-gun/21062089/). If that bullet had killed another customer instead, would their survivors have had a claim against Wal-Mart?) No and they don’t have liability when you run over someone in their parking lot either. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/22 "2016-07-19T05:53:06Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > Although the OP’s example is a purely political statement, the whole ‘Gun-Free Zone’ thing is itself nonsense. > > You cannot make up your own laws that supersede state and/or federal ones. If you are licensed by your state to carry a concealed weapon you may carry it wherever you like unless an area is specifically prohibited by another state/federal law. A college can claim they are a ‘gun free zone’ all they like but the most they can do is expel or fire you for breaking their rules, you cannot by arrested or jailed because you have not broken any actual laws. > > Same is true for most all businesses and personal homes. Because a home is private property the homeowner can order you off at any time, but whether or not you possess a gun has nothing to do with it. A business is private property open to the public so, again, unless there are specific laws restricting gun possession in those areas (i.e. a bank, a police station, a correctional facility etc.) putting up a sign saying ‘gun free zone’ is about as meaningful (legally) as putting up a ‘Hillary 2016’ poster… You’re going to have to help me out with this one a little bit, **Hail Ants**. You appear to be arguing that, if I walk into a coffee shop carrying a gun, the proprietor can’t throw me out because Second Amendment. Okay. But by that same logic, if I walk into a coffee shop, and start chanting Black Lives Matter slogans, the proprietor also cannot throw me out, because First Amendment. Is that your position? That a shop owner is legally prohibited from expelling people from their stores because of what they say? If it’s not, why would it be different for guns than it is for speech? > [@drewder](#): > > No and they don’t have liability when you run over someone in their parking lot either. If a store doesn’t have liability if I go all Suge Knight and kill someone with my car in their parking lot, why should it have liability if I use a shotgun instead of a sedan? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/23 "2016-07-19T08:24:17Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > Exactly right as a business owner you have that right in most states. What this law does is attach a duty to provide protection to the people whose right of self protection you have limited by ban. I suspect you would be someone who thinks they believe in freedom and personal responsibility, am I right? Yet if you believe (as you clearly do) that someone’s safety is decreased by them not having their gun on them at all times, then by voluntarily entering premises where they are not allowed to have their gun on them, they are quite clearly taking that risk on with full knowledge of what they are doing. So why should the business owner be liable if the customer takes that risk? The law limits the freedom of the property owner to only permit people into his _private_ premises who accept a certain, well announced and understood risk. The law forces the premises owner to bear the consequences of their customers’ decision. And the customers are negating their personal responsibility for their own decision to enter his premises knowing full well the risk. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/24 "2016-07-19T12:34:29Z")
It’s interesting that the “journalist” who wrote the article in the OP has written extensively on bakeries that refuse to serve same-sex weddings. The author appears to think that “discriminating” against people with guns is far, far worse than discriminating against homosexuals. Shocking. I’m floored. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/25 "2016-07-19T12:57:01Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It’s interesting that the “journalist” who wrote the article in the OP has written extensively on bakeries that refuse to serve same-sex weddings. > > The author appears to think that “discriminating” against people with guns is far, far worse than discriminating against homosexuals. > > Shocking. I’m floored. As noted above - carrying a gun (or a rose) is a voluntary action. Being homosexual or black or Jewish is not. Hence the difference. You can leave your gun (or rose) in your car and enter the shop. You can not leave your sexual orientation or skin color or religion there. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/26 "2016-07-19T13:46:39Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > No and they don’t have liability when you run over someone in their parking lot either. But the argument is that shopkeepers, by banning guns, are making the place less safe. If you do something deliberately to make your premises less safe, then you should be liable. At that point, the argument is merely whether banning guns does in fact decrease safety, or the opposite. If it turns out that inviting guns on the premises, or inviting SOME PARTICULAR guns on the premises, makes it less safe, then why shouldn’t the shopkeeper be liable? (Remember, there are more accidental gunshot deaths in the U.S. each year, and far more murders, than [justifiable homicides by civilians.](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_15_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_private_citizen_2010-2014.xls) ) ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/27 "2016-07-19T14:55:40Z")
> [@spamforbrains](#): > > there are quite a few businesses around here that have big signs stating that persons carrying guns are not welcome inside. Maybe because they know that gun-toting people are prone to violence? Sigh. Refutation of this has been posted many, many times on this board. Holders of concealed carry licenses (legal gun carriers) [commit](https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm) [far](http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-Report-from-the-Crime-Prevention-Research-Center-Final.pdf) [[URL=“http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#politics”]fewer](https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-involved-in-violent-crimes) crimes, violent or otherwise, than the population at large. If, instead, you meant that people who do already illegal things (carry without a permit) are more prone to violence - that’s probably true. Has no bearing on this conversation, but probably true. ETA - that said, the TN law is stupid. A property owner should absolutely be allowed to bar weapons from their property. The Bill of Rights does not apply to interactions between private citizens on private property, except in the case of protected classes. ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/28 "2016-07-19T15:00:00Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > It will be interesting > a) once it actually happens and a suit is filed. > b) said case goes up the chain-of-justice through the various levels. It presents the opportunity for a court to weigh in on the “I would have been Rambo if I was there” stories people trot out whenever a mass shooting happens. Plaintiff: “If I’d just had my gun I would have totally taken out those six guys with three shots, then said something cool while their car blew up in a massive fireball”. Jury: “This court finds that plaintiff would have cowered in the corner and pissed himself, gun or no”. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/29 "2016-07-19T15:45:29Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Prohibiting guns from a business premises is perfectly legal. It is not discrimination – that only occurs when it’s something the person banned can’t change – race, **religion** , etc. (bolding mine) Religion can’t be changed? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/30 "2016-07-19T15:49:06Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > As noted above - carrying a gun (or a rose) is a voluntary action. Being homosexual or black or Jewish is not. Hence the difference. You can leave your gun (or rose) in your car and enter the shop. You can not leave your sexual orientation or skin color or religion there. Whoa, whoa, whoa! You seem to be saying, like **RealityChuck** , that religion is not a choice that people make. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/31 "2016-07-19T18:46:47Z")
> [@leahcim](#): > > It presents the opportunity for a court to weigh in on the “I would have been Rambo if I was there” stories people trot out whenever a mass shooting happens. > > Plaintiff: “If I’d just had my gun I would have totally taken out those six guys with three shots, then said something cool while their car blew up in a massive fireball”. > > Jury: “This court finds that plaintiff would have cowered in the corner and pissed himself, gun or no”. I believe this was settled in the landmark case of McLaine v. Nakatomi Corporation (1988). ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/32 "2016-07-19T19:00:55Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > I have thought this should be the case ever since the Colorado theater shooting, as a former soldier I hate being put in a shooting gallery situation without the ability to protect myself. Really? Did you have to go to boot camp to learn you don’t like having people shooting at you? > [@drewder](#): > > Also if every place you go can disarm you you’re either going to leave your gun at home or in the car. Somehow I’ve managed to get by for over 40 years without needing to carry a firearm. > [@drewder](#): > > Either way it helps to prevent the safety increase by criminals not knowing who is armed. Well, statistically speaking that isn’t so. Everything I’ve read suggests the opposite. That more guns just leads to more accidents and that there are relatively few cases where a civilian was able to use a firearm to stop a criminal act. In fact, having a bunch of armed civilians did nothing to prevent the recent Dallas shooting rampage against armed and trained cops. In fact, having a bunch of civilians walking around with weapons just created additional confusion for law enforcement. I’m not really “anti-gun”, but I think a lot of people get a false sense of security from having a gun and don’t properly weight the actual risks. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/33 "2016-07-19T19:39:51Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Really? Did you have to go to boot camp to learn you don’t like having people shooting at you? > > Somehow I’ve managed to get by for over 40 years without needing to carry a firearm. > > Well, statistically speaking that isn’t so. Everything I’ve read suggests the opposite. That more guns just leads to more accidents and that there are relatively few cases where a civilian was able to use a firearm to stop a criminal act. > > In fact, having a bunch of armed civilians did nothing to prevent the recent Dallas shooting rampage against armed and trained cops. In fact, having a bunch of civilians walking around with weapons just created additional confusion for law enforcement. > I’m not really “anti-gun”, but I think a lot of people get a false sense of security from having a gun and don’t properly weight the actual risks. Being in the army makes you understand how venerable you are in a large crowd. Especially a movie theater where there are limited exits and mobility due to the rows of chairs. I don’t like being in such situations where it didn’t bother me before. I’ve gone 34 years without needing a seatbelt yet I still wear one. One of the basis of the idea that more guns = less crime is that criminals prefer to attack people they know will not be able to defend themselves. A place which has disarmed it’s customers helps criminals know they’ve got safer targets. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/34 "2016-07-19T19:51:43Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > One of the basis of the idea that more guns = less crime is that criminals prefer to attack people they know will not be able to defend themselves. I think criminals are simply inclined to escalate the use of force far out of proportion to maximize their chance of success for robbery, murder, or whatever. Take, for example, gangs in Chicago. There’s no shortage of guns or murder in Chicago. If Gang A thinks Gang B is heavily armed, under your theory of “more guns equals less violence,” Gang A would be at least somewhat deterred from quarreling with Gang B. Right? But that doesn’t seem like the case. Instead, Gang A just uses different tactics – ambushes, drive-bys, etc – to increase their chance of survival in a fight. With your military background, this should be pretty common sense to you. When faced with overwhelming American firepower, insurgents don’t resign themselves to a fair fight which they would likely lose. They change tactics to try to tilt the odds in their favor. ---
**Author:** ![spamforbrains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@spamforbrains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spamforbrains)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/35 "2016-07-19T20:24:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, statistically speaking that isn’t so. Everything I’ve read suggests the opposite. That more guns just leads to more accidents and that there are relatively few cases where a civilian was able to use a firearm to stop a criminal act. > > In fact, having a bunch of armed civilians did nothing to prevent the recent Dallas shooting rampage against armed and trained cops. In fact, having a bunch of civilians walking around with weapons just created additional confusion for law enforcement. > I’m not really “anti-gun”, but I think a lot of people get a false sense of security from having a gun and don’t properly weigh the actual risks. Ditto. What about my right to not be shot by crazy gun-toting lunatics? I want to be in gun-free environments. At all times. Anyone who thinks they need to carry a gun into Walmart or other stores is someone who shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/36 "2016-07-19T22:03:54Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > Being in the army makes you understand how \*\*venerable \*\*you are in a large crowd. Especially a movie theater where there are limited exits and mobility due to the rows of chairs. I don’t like being in such situations where it didn’t bother me before. Well, yes. Your sacrifice and service for your country should be appreciated.😉 > [@drewder](#): > > One of the basis of the idea that more guns = less crime is that criminals prefer to attack people they know will not be able to defend themselves. A place which has disarmed it’s customers helps criminals know they’ve got safer targets. I don’t know that the data actually supports that though. The occasional mass-shooter aside, criminals go to where they think they can commit their crimes and get away with it. Your chances of getting killed in a mass shooting in the US are relatively rare. [According to this chart, only about 20x as many people were killed last year in mass shootings (around 400) as were killed by a dog or a cow.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/16/chart-the-animals-that-are-most-likely-to-kill-you-this-summer/) In contrast, about 30,000 people are killed by cars. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/37 "2016-07-19T23:29:25Z")
> [@leahcim](#): > > It presents the opportunity for a court to weigh in on the “I would have been Rambo if I was there” stories people trot out whenever a mass shooting happens. > > Plaintiff: “If I’d just had my gun I would have totally taken out those six guys with three shots, then said something cool while their car blew up in a massive fireball”. > > Jury: “This court finds that plaintiff would have cowered in the corner and pissed himself, gun or no”. It would be interesting to see how the law is written. Does the court have the opportunity to decide this or does the legislation impose an assumption that the “good guy with a gun” would have been able to prevent the injury? The OP isn’t clear. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/38 "2016-07-19T23:32:05Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > But the argument is that shopkeepers, by banning guns, are making the place less safe. If you do something deliberately to make your premises less safe, then you should be liable. ) Someone running a rodeo or skating rink or ski resort or kart track is making their place less safe than if they didn’t. When you see the sign and agree to leave your gun in your car, you are taking on the risk. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2016, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/39 "2016-07-20T02:25:50Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Is a Tennessee shopkeeper liable if they DO allow guns on the premises, and an idiot shoots somebody, whether accidentally or maliciously? (See, for example, the toddler [who shot his mother in the head in an Idaho Wal-Mart](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/30/woman-shot-with-own-gun/21062089/). If that bullet had killed another customer instead, would their survivors have had a claim against Wal-Mart?) > [@drewder](#): > > No and they don’t have liability when you run over someone in their parking lot either. Actually I wouldn’t be too sure of that; the example cited. A parking lot is considered public but once you cross inside the doors the owner could be held responsible; at least in theory. You would need a good lawyer and some luck but I can see places where it could fly. ---
**Author:** ![spamforbrains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@spamforbrains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spamforbrains)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2016, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249/40 "2016-07-20T03:04:39Z")
> [@](#): > > When you see the sign and agree to leave your gun in your car, you are taking on the risk. risk of what? Not shooting anyone? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liabilities-for-gun-free-zones/760249.md?page=3)