Gun Free Zones Damages

[vjallen75]

That's just it, they don't "have" to post signs to provide effective notice. It can be verbal, or written. It also leaves open the possibility for it to be arbitrary. Example: I walk in wearing a "Come and Take It" shirt, camo pants, and a 2A tactical cap, with my gun clearly visible in a skull and crossbones kydex holster, there is no signage so I haven't violated any laws yet. I'm met at the door by a security guard/manager who tells me " You can't bring your gun in here" I have been given effective notice. You come in right after I leave, and you are wearing a button down shirt, slacks and have your gun in a high and tight leather holster that matches you belt and shoes, the same guard/manager also knows you are carrying but you don't appear to be as scary looking so he doesn't say anything to you as you conduct your business. Discrimination? The only defining characteristic between us was the way we were dressed, but he uses the effective notice only on one of us. I don't know of that scenario occurring, but the possibility is there. JMHO

Thanks for your clarification, I now understand what you mean. I believe, until you take away the human aspect of effective notice, there will always be the possibility of discrimination. I haven't heard of any situation like this happening, but I think something like this would cause a change in the way verbiage works. Unfortunately my idea would only take car of the question of is this sign legal or not.

[Jusme]

That's just it, they don't "have" to post signs to provide effective notice. It can be verbal, or written. It also leaves open the possibility for it to be arbitrary. Example: I walk in wearing a "Come and Take It" shirt, camo pants, and a 2A tactical cap, with my gun clearly visible in a skull and crossbones kydex holster, there is no signage so I haven't violated any laws yet. I'm met at the door by a security guard/manager who tells me " You can't bring your gun in here" I have been given effective notice. You come in right after I leave, and you are wearing a button down shirt, slacks and have your gun in a high and tight leather holster that matches you belt and shoes, the same guard/manager also knows you are carrying but you don't appear to be as scary looking so he doesn't say anything to you as you conduct your business. Discrimination? The only defining characteristic between us was the way we were dressed, but he uses the effective notice only on one of us. I don't know of that scenario occurring, but the possibility is there. JMHO

Thanks for your clarification, I now understand what you mean. I believe, until you take away the human aspect of effective notice, there will always be the possibility of discrimination. I haven't heard of any situation like this happening, but I think something like this would cause a change in the way verbiage works. Unfortunately my idea would only take car of the question of is this sign legal or not.

Another thought along those lines, is that if a business is properly posted 30.06 and 30.07 then that means it is universal, even though it only affects LTC holders. But say you have a friend, who is in a position of authority at that particular business, he knows you are a LTC holder, and he says that "you" can CC there. How can someone give effective consent when they have already posted their effective notice of prohibition. It is not like effective consent to search, which can be revoked, but is is a direct violation to the letter and intent of the law, but there are only penalties involved for the LTC holder.
Just more random thoughts bouncing around in all of the extra space between my ears.

[JALLEN]

That's just it, they don't "have" to post signs to provide effective notice. It can be verbal, or written. It also leaves open the possibility for it to be arbitrary. Example: I walk in wearing a "Come and Take It" shirt, camo pants, and a 2A tactical cap, with my gun clearly visible in a skull and crossbones kydex holster, there is no signage so I haven't violated any laws yet. I'm met at the door by a security guard/manager who tells me " You can't bring your gun in here" I have been given effective notice. You come in right after I leave, and you are wearing a button down shirt, slacks and have your gun in a high and tight leather holster that matches you belt and shoes, the same guard/manager also knows you are carrying but you don't appear to be as scary looking so he doesn't say anything to you as you conduct your business. Discrimination? The only defining characteristic between us was the way we were dressed, but he uses the effective notice only on one of us. I don't know of that scenario occurring, but the possibility is there. JMHO

Public accommodations cannot discriminate on the basis of of race, color, religion, or national origin. The Americans with Disabilities Act adds disabilities to those. Appearance isn't a prohibited basis. You can discriminate based on weird appearance all you like.

[Jusme]

That's just it, they don't "have" to post signs to provide effective notice. It can be verbal, or written. It also leaves open the possibility for it to be arbitrary. Example: I walk in wearing a "Come and Take It" shirt, camo pants, and a 2A tactical cap, with my gun clearly visible in a skull and crossbones kydex holster, there is no signage so I haven't violated any laws yet. I'm met at the door by a security guard/manager who tells me " You can't bring your gun in here" I have been given effective notice. You come in right after I leave, and you are wearing a button down shirt, slacks and have your gun in a high and tight leather holster that matches you belt and shoes, the same guard/manager also knows you are carrying but you don't appear to be as scary looking so he doesn't say anything to you as you conduct your business. Discrimination? The only defining characteristic between us was the way we were dressed, but he uses the effective notice only on one of us. I don't know of that scenario occurring, but the possibility is there. JMHO

Public accommodations cannot discriminate on the basis of of race, color, religion, or national origin. The Americans with Disabilities Act adds disabilities to those. Appearance isn't a prohibited basis. You can discriminate based on weird appearance all you like.

I understand that they have the right to refuse business to anyone unless it falls into one of the discriminatory categories you mentioned, but can they do so by using effective notice for LTC holders as the reason? And what happens if, you come in and they tell you they don't allow guns, but you see other customers OC? As I have stated, I have no knowledge of this scenario occurring, but, would it not, at that point, become a discriminatory practice to allow carry by some, but not by all LTC holders? I know that 30.06 and 30.07 don't have categories for how a person is dressed, their hair length, skin color etc. but I was just accessing weird ideas that come to me to ask hypothetical questions.

[JALLEN]

That's just it, they don't "have" to post signs to provide effective notice. It can be verbal, or written. It also leaves open the possibility for it to be arbitrary. Example: I walk in wearing a "Come and Take It" shirt, camo pants, and a 2A tactical cap, with my gun clearly visible in a skull and crossbones kydex holster, there is no signage so I haven't violated any laws yet. I'm met at the door by a security guard/manager who tells me " You can't bring your gun in here" I have been given effective notice. You come in right after I leave, and you are wearing a button down shirt, slacks and have your gun in a high and tight leather holster that matches you belt and shoes, the same guard/manager also knows you are carrying but you don't appear to be as scary looking so he doesn't say anything to you as you conduct your business. Discrimination? The only defining characteristic between us was the way we were dressed, but he uses the effective notice only on one of us. I don't know of that scenario occurring, but the possibility is there. JMHO

Public accommodations cannot discriminate on the basis of of race, color, religion, or national origin. The Americans with Disabilities Act adds disabilities to those. Appearance isn't a prohibited basis. You can discriminate based on weird appearance all you like.

I understand that they have the right to refuse business to anyone unless it falls into one of the discriminatory categories you mentioned, but can they do so by using effective notice for LTC holders as the reason? And what happens if, you come in and they tell you they don't allow guns, but you see other customers OC? As I have stated, I have no knowledge of this scenario occurring, but, would it not, at that point, become a discriminatory practice to allow carry by some, but not by all LTC holders? I know that 30.06 and 30.07 don't have categories for how a person is dressed, their hair length, skin color etc. but I was just accessing weird ideas that come to me to ask hypothetical questions.

Of course it is discriminatory, but it is not unlawful to do so. One can discriminate all one wants, on whatever basis, other than the prohibited ones, and there is nothing that can be done about it except to avoid doing business there.

Now, if it turned out that all the OCers were men and women were being told no guns allowed, or Jews were carrying but Catholics weren't, etc, that might put a different slant on it, as there might be proof of prohibited discrimination, but if unkept long haired men were not allowed to carry, all you could do would be get a haircut. Profiling and all that.

[vjallen75]

Another thought along those lines, is that if a business is properly posted 30.06 and 30.07 then that means it is universal, even though it only affects LTC holders. But say you have a friend, who is in a position of authority at that particular business, he knows you are a LTC holder, and he says that "you" can CC there. How can someone give effective consent when they have already posted their effective notice of prohibition. It is not like effective consent to search, which can be revoked, but is is a direct violation to the letter and intent of the law, but there are only penalties involved for the LTC holder.
Just more random thoughts bouncing around in all of the extra space between my ears.

I understand your concern with discrimination. That's a whole different battle unfortunately. I just want to clear up the confusion for valid/invalid signs and make it harder for them to post. I feel like it should be more to it than just getting a piece of paper on your window to post proper signage. Higher liability limits and maybe some way to inform business owners of our excellent track record would deter them from posting. If it takes a few signs down it would be worth it.

[crazy2medic]

I like the idea of requiring a government entities to apply to the State for authorization to post 06/07 compliant signs, just add businesses to the legislation, make it so they have to apply for a permit or certificate from the State to post, one for 06 and one for 07, the State charges a processing fee for each type of sign, $40 for each type of sign, $80 for 06 and 07, the State send them a certificate they can take to any print shop and have their signs made, the certificate is good for four years, the date of expiration is printed on the sign in one inch block letters, basically make it as much a hassle for posting as it is a hassle for getting a LTC. My 2cents

[Jim Beaux]

Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

You can sue if there is not enough security measures and if they deny you the right for self defense. It is a theory and I am not sure why such case is not in courts yet.

It's not a theory & there have been successful suits for damages.

A Federal judge in Brooklyn upheld yesterday a jury award of $2.5 million to Connie Francis, the singer, to compensate for her rape in a [Howard Johnson] motel on Nov. 8. 1974.

http://www.nytimes.com/1976/09/21/archi ... .html?_r=0

Another against same hotel chain for $1.75 million

Failed to provide reasonable care for her safety

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 02,2938447

[Jim Beaux]

Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

Sure, right now... but if the law changes, and now says that you are liable if you post signs... then you are liable if you post signs.

Liability insurance rates would go up for any location that posted signs, because it would result in greater potential risk of loss to the insurance company... so signs would come down at all but the most venomously anti-gun places.

It becomes a slippery slope due to the fact that the left wants to do the same thing to gun manufacturers. The only way I could see something like this working were if it was a location that a person must enter by law, but those would usually be government facilities. If a person has a choice not to enter a posted business, then it would be hard to hold them liable for someone else's actions. So far I have not run across a 30.06 posted business, that I don't have another option as to where to take my business.
What I think would be a better option would be as a discrimination issue whereby someone with an LTC, was being discriminated against, just like a licensed beautician would not be allowed to carry scissors, or a chef not being able to carry their knife. Either of those things could be used as a defensive weapon and they would obviously be trained to use them, so why only licensed handgun carriers?JMHO

One has a choice.

There have been successful lawsuits against carnivals and theme parks in which people chose to ride the rides that cause them injuries....and remember the McDonalds hot coffee judgements.

The point is you can sue for almost anything & let the legal process determine liability.

[vjallen75]

I like the idea of requiring a government entities to apply to the State for authorization to post 06/07 compliant signs, just add businesses to the legislation, make it so they have to apply for a permit or certificate from the State to post, one for 06 and one for 07, the State charges a processing fee for each type of sign, $40 for each type of sign, $80 for 06 and 07, the State send them a certificate they can take to any print shop and have their signs made, the certificate is good for four years, the date of expiration is printed on the sign in one inch block letters, basically make it as much a hassle for posting as it is a hassle for getting a LTC. My 2cents

I would like the idea of the sign having an expiration date. The less we have to wonder "is this sign valid" the better for us.

[C-dub]

Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

You can sue if there is not enough security measures and if they deny you the right for self defense. It is a theory and I am not sure why such case is not in courts yet.

It's not a theory & there have been successful suits for damages.

A Federal judge in Brooklyn upheld yesterday a jury award of $2.5 million to Connie Francis, the singer, to compensate for her rape in a [Howard Johnson] motel on Nov. 8. 1974.

http://www.nytimes.com/1976/09/21/archi ... .html?_r=0

Another against same hotel chain for $1.75 million

Failed to provide reasonable care for her safety

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 02,2938447

Don't forget this one, right here in Texas.
http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/jury ... f887a.html
$27M against McDonalds for two teens that were attacked down in College Station.

[MikeyJ]

My understanding is that the bill listed below is a done deal in Tennessee and becomes law at the end of the month:
http://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/tennes ... usinesses/

None of those Tennessee bills that passed provide for damages if a person is injured in a gun free zone. Don't know the status of that bill yet.

Here's another story about the Tennessee law. http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/2 ... literally/

The story links to SB1736, which makes the entity posting the sign prohibiting licensed carry responsible for the safety and defense of the permit holder and extends to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees, etc. The permit holder can sue for damages and is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.

[RossA]

Sweet! The law goes into effect July 1. Charles, how about a major effort to get this passed here?