Liability of NOT permitting conceal carry?

[gkisystems]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin.

Are there any examples in Wisconsin or perhaps nationwide where the conceal carry of firearms was legal but prohibiting conceal carry by a local business or in local municipal buildings is also legal (at the option of the local business or local municipality)...and there is case law where somebody got hurt/killed because they were unable to defend themselves because the local business/municipality decided to disallow conceal carry even though they could have allowed it if they wanted to?

 

[FlyingRon]

No, and there is not likely to be any such case for several reasons.

First, sovereign immunity almost always keeps you from suing the state over such things.

Second, it's a complete fallacy that restricting you from carrying guns on a property causes the injury that you're imagining.

 

[tranquility]

Also, private businesses can exclude who they want as along as it is not for a prohibited reason. (Race, sex, religion etc.)

As to the theory of fallacy, I disagree. There are certainly cases where people defended themselves and others with handguns in public. To say it is a fallacy is wrong. To say it is a bad policy decision because the risk outweighs the reward is what the debate is today.

 

[gkisystems]

No, and there is not likely to be any such case for several reasons.

First, sovereign immunity almost always keeps you from suing the state over such things.

Second, it's a complete fallacy that restricting you from carrying guns on a property causes the injury that you're imagining.

As part of the new conceal carry law in Wisconsin, immunity is granted to those who do not prohibit conceal carry. It does not give immunity to those that prohibit conceal carry...so because of this, it would seem to make sense that there is more liability by disallowing conceal carry than there is by allowing it. How much liability? I'm not sure...that's why I'm asking.

Do you think the liability would be higher for municipal governments that prohibit it vs. local businesses?

For example, if I'm a local business and I do not want to allow conceal carry, I have that right by posting a sign giving notice. From the customer's perspective, they have some options:

A. Do not frequent my busness
B. Voluntarily enter and knowingly waive the right to conceal carry while inside.

However, if a government entity bans conceal carry, the customer (citizen) has no other options. When the citizen needs to conduct some sort of business in a city building (apply for permits, pay utility bills, whatever) they have no alternatives.

In the past, the municipal government could argue that they had no liability from disallowing conceal carry because it was prohibited at the state level. However, now state law allows it and they are making the choice to disallow it.

The problem I'm havingis coming up with some case law examples where somebody sued because the municipality (or a business) had the option to allow customers to protect themselves but refused and injury resulted.

 

[FlyingRon]

As to the theory of fallacy, I disagree. There are certainly cases where people defended themselves and others with handguns in public. To say it is a fallacy is wrong. To say it is a bad policy decision because the risk outweighs the reward is what the debate is today.

If you read what I actually wrote you said I didn't say that there wasn't cases where people defended themselves with a gun. I said that it was a fallacy that failure to allow people to carry "causes" injuries in the legal liability sense.

By the same argument, you can assert that you would be able to sue the state for not keeping those illegally carrying guns into such places from shooting you.

 

[ecmst12]

How would one prove that injury would not have resulted if they'd had a gun? How would they prove that MORE injuries would not have occurred if another person had a gun? How would they prove the assailant would not have gotten the gun from them and shot them or someone else? How would they prove that they would not have missed their shot and hit another innocent person?

See the problem?

 

[xylene]

This is akin to saying, "Had the speed limit been higher, I would have already been past when the accident occurred, and so I want to sue."

Completely ridiculous.

 

[tranquility]

While the revision seems more reasonable, what was written was:

Second, it's a complete fallacy that restricting you from carrying guns on a property causes the injury that you're imagining.

As to the revision, it is black letter law that the criminal acts of others tend to break proximate causation in negligence to third parties. (intervening and superseding cause) However, the rule of law is not absolute and can be difficult to apply in many events. To say it is a fallacy one can be successfully sued for the criminal acts of others today is no longer true. A great outline on how the law developed and what it is in Wisconsin as of 2010 is at:
http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/download_file/262/

Info addition:
In an article on the Wisconsin law at http://www.wkow.com/story/15928473/businesses-non-profits-react-to-conceal-carry?clienttype=printable

Madison attorney Gary Antoniewicz said employers who do not prohibit the carrying of weapons are granted immunity from liability, but the scope of the immunity is unclear. Antoniewicz said businesses prohibiting concealed carry are not necessarily liable for harm caused by concealed weapons or the lack thereof. But Antoniewicz said there could be liability, citing an example of a business with some history of armed robbery and a prohibition on concealed carry having a customer injured in a robbery.

 

[swalsh411]

This is akin to saying, "Had the speed limit been higher, I would have already been past when the accident occurred, and so I want to sue."

Completely ridiculous.

No it's not akin to saying that because there is no deterrant factor involved in your example. There can be a deterrant factor when citizens are armed because criminals prefer easy victims. Whether or not concealed carry is good public policy can be debated but yours is a bad analogy.

 

[FlyingRon]

While the revision seems more reasonable, what was written was:

It's not a revision, it is what I said originally. It's your failure to comprehend.

To say it is a fallacy one can be successfully sued for the criminal acts of others today is no longer true.

I didn't say that either. I said that trying to get strict liability for the acts of others on the notion that my barring you from bring your deadly weapon onto my property was unlikely.

If you want to argue with things you invent yourself, you can leave me out of it.

Further, just because a lawyer stumping for clients saying their "may" be liability doesn't make a legal precedent.

 

[tranquility]

Good or bad analogies aside, the lawyers of Wisconsin are aware of the law.

State Bar of Wisconsin | InsideTrack | Concealed carry: Could prohibiting weapons in the workplace lead to liability?

 

[tranquility]

Let's review the evolution.

Second, it's a complete fallacy that restricting you from carrying guns on a property causes the injury that you're imagining.

Then

:I said that it was a fallacy that failure to allow people to carry "causes" injuries in the legal liability sense.

Then:

I said that trying to get strict liability for the acts of others on the notion that my barring you from bring your deadly weapon onto my property was unlikely.

Yes, it is clearly my problem for not understanding.

"Strict liability"? Who even mentioned or alluded to that other than you in your last revision?

But, at least we have gone from "complete fallacy" to "unlikely".

 

[gkisystems]

I said that it was a fallacy that failure to allow people to carry "causes" injuries in the legal liability sense.

I actually agree with this. Prohibiting conceal carry does not "cause" a criminal to shoot an innocent person. However, I would think it can contribute to liability on the person prohibiting conceal carry.

Likewise, a landlord does not cause criminals to enter the apartments of tenants and injure them...but he still could be liable if he did something (or did not do something) that contributed such as a faulty door lock or latch.

How would one prove that injury would not have resulted if they'd had a gun? How would they prove that MORE injuries would not have occurred if another person had a gun?

I would think you could cite studies and have an expert witness testify that the injury may not have happened because the criminal may have been detered from committing the crime because his victim (or a bystander) may have been armed.

How would they prove the assailant would not have gotten the gun from them and shot them or someone else?

If the criminal is serious about doing the crime, he already brought a gun. He would not need the victim's gun.

How would they prove that they would not have missed their shot and hit another innocent person?

Merely pointing the gun without firing it could also act as a deterent. A shot would not be needed. I find it hard to believe that another innocent person would just be standing around waiting to get hit by friendly fire while the crime is going down. Any sane person would escape the area as quickly as possible. Of course, that is no guarantee that they would not get shot...but if they did, I would place the blame on the criminal, not the guy defending himself.

 

[ecmst12]

You misunderstand. In order for liability to be established, you would need to prove that whatever injury DEFINITELY WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if the victim had been allowed to carry his gun. Which would be impossible.

 

[gkisystems]

You misunderstand. In order for liability to be established, you would need to prove that whatever injury DEFINITELY WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if the victim had been allowed to carry his gun. Which would be impossible.

How is it that tenants can sue landlords (and win) for stolen property and personal injury when a criminal has easy access to an apartment due to the landlord's failure to adequately secure the building? Tenants cannot prove the crime would not have happened if it were not for the landlord's failure to act...but they can easily argue that it was a big contributing factor.