[divegeek]

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.

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.

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.

 

[divegeek]

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.

Why are they exempt from this liability? I don't see anything in the law that indemnifies them.

Does anyone have a link to Shurtleff's opinion? I'd really like to read it.