[Luis Gonzalez]

"If the state where your business resides allows shall-issue carry like Florida does, and your business restricts that law within it's private boundaries, have you taken liability suits into account? A colorable argument could be made that if you impinge on someone's right to carry and they subsequently fall victim to workplace violence due to their disarmed status, you could be held responsible."

The liability falls on the owner of the property, and it comes down to the property owner to make the decision as to what may serve him best.

While I disagree with the idea, the property owner may believe that no guns protects his interests better than guns do, and since all liability falls on him, it is on him that the decision should rest on how to best address the possibility of liability.

[Joe Brower]

It's quite probable that the liability could also go the other way, and if something bad (or even not so bad) ever happened with a legally-carried firearm at a private business that respected individual carry, the lawyers would be all over that as well. That particular profession does seem to excel at profiting equally well no matter which way the balance tips.

So as I said before, decisions would best be made on the side of individual liberty. Decisions made by the business owner, preferably.

[Mulder]

The liability falls on the owner of the property, and it comes down to the property owner to make the decision as to what may serve him best.

Why does the liability fall on the property owner? Is this not a result of actions by the state (judicial and legislative)?

Therefore, if state action (placing all liability on the property owner) is the reason for banning guns, is this not a de facto infringement on the 2nd amendment by the state?