Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pistolshot
We had this little debate a couple of weeks ago. My position as the business owner is to create a safe work environment. If I say guns are not allowed, that absolves me of all liability if you desire to bring a weapon and leave it locked in your vehicle.

If you don't have any rules forbidding firearms locked in cars, why would you have any liability in that scenario in the first place?

I would think that a rule forbidding firearms from vehicles should increase liability in (at least) two ways:

  1. The imposition of a rule may imply a duty to enforce it, especially in scenarios where someone who complies with the rule would be placed at a disadvantage compared to someone who does not. If an employer wants to search every car every time it enters the parking lot, fine. Otherwise, it would open itself up to liability for failing to stop someone from violating it.
  2. If any harm befalls someone as a foreseeable consequence of compliance with a rule, the company should be held liable unless it can demonstrate that the rule was safer than any alternative.
Maybe liability laws need to be tweaked to make things more obvious, but given that disarming honest people makes them less safe, there's no reason it should reduce liability.
128 posted on 02/19/2009 4:54:03 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: supercat
Here's the problem...and you identify it clearly.

If an employer wants to search every car every time it enters the parking lot, fine.

One, I can't do this.
Two, how would I know what you have in the privacy of your vehicle?

The liability comes into play if something happens while you are on the business property and act improperly to violate the rule. As long as it is locked in your car, it's not an issue. Once it leaves that sanctity, is another matter. The hope is you are responsible.

It all boils down to costs for insurance to keep the business alive. Not having a rule like this increases the premium to an outlandish sum. Look how many companies have this kind of requirement for hiring. the problem they have enforcing it, is invasion of private property.

And try saying you have a right to privacy on a military post as a civilian. See how that works.

I ran a private- no walkin gunsmithing business out of my garage. My premium was higher than the gross I made each month. That was a 60 hour + week. When I ended the business, my insurance was cut in half.

139 posted on 02/19/2009 6:39:44 PM PST by Pistolshot ("Democrats don't show respect, they just demand respect " - ClearCase_guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson