They are not currently liable since, after all, you voluntarily chose to enter those places knowing that you couldn't carry, didn't you? At least, that's what I think the premise is.
Liability for places that ban firearms?
I went looking for a new holster today and had a good talk with a guy at the Sports Authority gun counter. A thought or question came up...Can/should a place that bans firearms carried for personal protection by law abiding citizens, such as churches, Larry H. Miller stuff and AOL, be held liable if you are physically assaulted on their property while under the care of their "security personnel"? Obviously the assault I would refer to would/could justify using your weapon.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
That's one premise. Another is that by requiring you to disarm they are assuming responsibility for your safety. After all, if you ask them why they have a "no guns" policy, they'll tell you it's to increase the safety of their patrons. Since they're taking steps to ensure your safety while on their property, and those steps include disarming you, it's reasonable for you to assume that they're taking on the responsibility for your protection.Car Knocker said:They are not currently liable since, after all, you voluntarily chose to enter those places knowing that you couldn't carry, didn't you? At least, that's what I think the premise is.
Which way this argument would go in court would probably depend partly on luck -- the jury pool drawn -- and mostly on which side had the smoothest lawyer.
According to our AG Mark Shurtleff, any place which refuses you your right to carry is liable for your safety to, while at and on your way home from that place. The only exceptions are churches which don't allow carry and individual residences. All others are required by law to allow you in and those places specifically written into the law such as prisons and mental institutions are required to provide lockers for safe storage of your weapon.
Larry H. Miller venues and the E Center are legal to carry in. You are responsible for what happens to you while there if carrying.
This is from several personal conversations with Mr. Shurtleff and this discussion can be found several times in earlier threads.
Larry H. Miller venues and the E Center are legal to carry in. You are responsible for what happens to you while there if carrying.
This is from several personal conversations with Mr. Shurtleff and this discussion can be found several times in earlier threads.
Why are they exempt from this liability? I don't see anything in the law that indemnifies them.Cinhil said:According to our AG Mark Shurtleff, any place which refuses you your right to carry is liable for your safety to, while at and on your way home from that place. The only exceptions are churches which don't allow carry and individual residences.
Does anyone have a link to Shurtleff's opinion? I'd really like to read it.
Perhaps I mis-spoke a portion of my comment concerning liability exemption.
I cannot recall at this time where we may find anything concerning this when it comes to individuals homes or churches and liability.
I do know that the opinion I expressed from Mark Shurtleff is from direct face to face communication with him on the subject, so that I will take to the bank.
I will have to look closer at liability issues on the other items I mentioned.
Sorry if I confused everyone.
I cannot recall at this time where we may find anything concerning this when it comes to individuals homes or churches and liability.
I do know that the opinion I expressed from Mark Shurtleff is from direct face to face communication with him on the subject, so that I will take to the bank.
I will have to look closer at liability issues on the other items I mentioned.
Sorry if I confused everyone.
Far better would be to codify this in Utah statutes.
THere is a possible law working its way through Utah State Legislator right now that would affect this.
Here is the link to the law so you can go read it in full. This is written into the law that allows people to take firearms onto private property as long as the firearm remains in their vehicle. This is a good law and has the liability issue written right into it. I would recommend you all go read this law then write your legislators!!
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/sbillint/sb0067.htm
Excerpt:
34-45-105. Cause of action for noncompliance -- Remedies.
106 (1) An individual who is injured, physically or otherwise, as a result of any policy or
107 rule prohibited by Section 34-45-103 , may bring a civil action in a court of competent
108 jurisdiction against any person that violates the provisions of Section 34-45-103 .
So if this law passes (which it should) and then someone prohibits you from bringing a weapon in your vehicle to work and you are injured, you can bring civil action against them. This law as I understand it only covers weapons in vehicles, but it is definetly a step in the right direction.
Here is the link to the law so you can go read it in full. This is written into the law that allows people to take firearms onto private property as long as the firearm remains in their vehicle. This is a good law and has the liability issue written right into it. I would recommend you all go read this law then write your legislators!!
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/sbillint/sb0067.htm
Excerpt:
34-45-105. Cause of action for noncompliance -- Remedies.
106 (1) An individual who is injured, physically or otherwise, as a result of any policy or
107 rule prohibited by Section 34-45-103 , may bring a civil action in a court of competent
108 jurisdiction against any person that violates the provisions of Section 34-45-103 .
So if this law passes (which it should) and then someone prohibits you from bringing a weapon in your vehicle to work and you are injured, you can bring civil action against them. This law as I understand it only covers weapons in vehicles, but it is definetly a step in the right direction.
PW, the good thing about laws like this being passed is that they open up the way for argumentation by deduction. In other words, even though this bill only protects our right to carry firearm in our vehicles on private property and assigns liability in the case we are prevented from exercising this right... it could later be used to argue that carrying a firearm on one's person is little different than carrying it in one's private vehicle.
Though laws like this certainly don't make such arguments SOLID, they definitely give room to stand on them.
Though laws like this certainly don't make such arguments SOLID, they definitely give room to stand on them.
Amen brother!!! Thats why we need this law.bane said:PW, the good thing about laws like this being passed is that they open up the way for argumentation by deduction. In other words, even though this bill only protects our right to carry firearm in our vehicles on private property and assigns liability in the case we are prevented from exercising this right... it could later be used to argue that carrying a firearm on one's person is little different than carrying it in one's private vehicle.
Though laws like this certainly don't make such arguments SOLID, they definitely give room to stand on them.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Utah Guns Forum
A forum community dedicated to firearm owners and enthusiasts in Utah. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
