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.
Banning guns from a venue open to the public is as reckless as chaining the fire exits closed or allowing rattlesnakes to roam lose.
Every real instance of chained fire doors is one that patrons are not aware of (and thus do not consent to.)
Now, if you have a ban, enforced by magnetometers, and the owner allows his pals who are violent criminals to bypass the security and carry guns, and this leads to harm, THEN you have a case of negligence.