[ConorMacNessa]

"In at least the first shooting, the perpetrator conducted his murder spree in a commercial facility whose owners had marked it as a gun-free zone, a designation that keeps concealed-carry licensees from bringing their weapons into the building."

If it's a concealed carry state, how can they tell you don't have a weapon on your person?

[Turbopilot]

Interestingly, according to this blog, the signs at the Westroads mall indicating that guns are prohibited have been taken down. Why that is hasn't been made public AFAIK, but I think that without those signs, it is now legal for carry permit holders to be armed in that mall.

[Sender]

As a related question, if you are a legal CCW holder and are carrying in a legal manner, what penalties does one face for carrying in a business marked “no guns”?

[SUSSA]

Granting, for the sake of argument, the Lottian view that gun-free status makes a place of business more dangerous for its patrons, this lawsuit theory seems a surprising position for conservatives to take, since they presumably are defenders of private property rights.

Doesn’t a property owner have a right to ban guns from his property, even if it is unwise to do so? And aren’t those who believe such a ban puts them at risk free not to enter his property? Aren’t customers assuming any risk, and waiving any right to recompense, when they knowingly and voluntarily enter a gun-free zone?

The property owner has the right to ban guns, just like he should have the right to chain a fire exit closed. The customer has the right to sue when, in either case, the owner’s reckless disregard for the safety of the customers causes harm.

Likewise, a property owner has the right to keep lose rattlesnakes in his store. Here again, his reckless disregard for the safety of his customers creates a tort when one of the snakes bites someone.

Banning guns from a venue open to the public is as reckless as chaining the fire exits closed or allowing rattlesnakes to roam lose. Some trial attorney is going to become very wealthy when he starts taking these cases.

[logic]

I find it strange that everyone is discussing what the ramification are of carrying concealed in a posted gun-free zone... Instead of the question posed by the author...

I am personally more interested in the original question since I refuse to surrender my Right to keep and bear arms for the state issued privilege to carry concealed...

Not being a lawyer, but keenly interested in the subject, my understanding is that prohibiting firearms does not create a legal liability unless they also make an attempt at providing that security/protection. In other words, if they simply post no firearms allowed, they created no legal liability, however if they provide a security guard, which fails to prevent an attack, the un-armed patron does have a legal claim.

Morally, there is no question, if you deprive me of my right and responsibility to defend myself, you are then liable for the repercussions you caused.

[Joe Brower]

I am continuing to compile a list of FreeRepublic folks who are interested in RKBA topics. FReepmail me if you want to be added.

Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.

And my apologies for any redundant pings.

If you're looking for the standard FR "bang list", please click HERE.

[MainFrame65]

In Tennessee the laws provide certain protections regarding lawful protection of self and others. But all of these are dependent on condition of lawfulness. Carrying a weapon illegally - such as in a posted location - removes these protections. The bad guy you shoot - or stab - inside that posted location can sue you, and you will NOT have the presumption of self- defense for legal protection.

[archy]

Places like the Omaha Mall have the right to deny entry to people carrying weapons, even when completely legal and certified by the state. They should face the consequences of that decision, however.

Just so. Consequences, per U.S. federal law:

United States Code, Title 18, U.S. Criminal Code
Part I, Chapter 13 §ection 242
Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under der color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

I understand that in response to advice from their legal staff, the management at the mall in Omaha is now quietly removing their signage prohibiting the carry of personal weapons.

[Tarpon]

The cigarette argument is bogus. Cigarettes you do to yourself, guns are used to kill others, that’s the difference.

The right to self protection no matter where you are is a basic right.

[Panzerfaust]

Some great posts on this thread. I'd add that your inability to carry in a posted location, should you be subsequently harmed in that location, will probably not allow you to sue the posting owner.

After all, it is not essential that you go to a mall that is posted as a no-carry zone. If you go in unarmed, it was of your own free will, with no expectation that anyone has to guarantee your safety. Recall the Washington D.C. case that established the fact that the police have no legal obligation to protect you from criminals, which came from the incident where the cops failed to respond to repeated 911 calls from the victims of a home invasion/rape incident.

Now, if the police in Washington DC are not legally liable for a failure to protect citizens (even though the notorious D.C. gun laws essentially disarm the citizens there), I'm betting that the owner of a mall who tells you "No Guns Allowed" will not be liable, especially when you could easily go to another mall.

If, however, you are compelled to appear in a location and are forced to appear unarmed (let's say you have to report for jury duty and it's "No Guns Allowed" at the courthouse), then you might well have a case that someone else is responsible for your safety while you are on the premises. Still, I go back to the DC example cited above, and I'm betting you would have a tough case to prove.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

I don’t know about “gun free zones” but I’d support “gum free zones” - I’m sick of stepping in discarded gum on the sidewalk and also finding it stuck to the undersides of desks.

[TYVets]

The only gun free zone I shop on a regular basis is Bass Pro Shop, Springfield, Missouri.

My personal opinion is the parking lot of gun free Malls and other business is the parking lot, not inside the store.

[Freedom2specul8]

marked to read later...