Do "anti-CCW" stores have a greater legal responsibility to protect customers?

[Boatswain2PA]

If a store prevents me from defending myself (or my family) to my full legal ability by prohibiting me from carrying my firearm, then do they have a greater responsibility for providing for my (or my families) protection?

Seems like a lot of "anti-CCW" establishments only do that because their lawyers have told them it will reduce their legal liabilities (we don't want people with guns in the store!!). I wonder what would happen if, next time a violent crime occurs in an anti-CCW establishment, the establishment were sued by a CCW license-holder for not providing sufficient protection.

Your thoughts?

[mappow]

Soooo, I have a paint store and I don't particularly like firearms. I have posted NO GUNS ALLOWED in plain sight IAW State Law. Now, per your question, I'll have to provide stock clerks/SWAT employees to keep the area secure and stocked. Who will be eating this additional cost? Just asking :>)

[chiefpropellerhead]

I understand where Boatswain2pa is coming from. I also understand where mappow is coming from, the angle of a business owner. As a business owner, my focus is to provide a service or goods to my customers. That is probably my main focus. As a business owner, am I legally responsible for providing security for my customers? The answer to that is probably not. I guess it all boils down to what our expectation is for the possibility of a crime happening. The the type of business, what goods or services they sell, location of business and clientele probably has to be considered. If the business has a high expectation for the possibility of security related incidents then they will probably beef up security. The cost of that security will roll down hill to the customer through increased prices. Business owners are in the business to make a profit. If I were in business my goal would be able to make a profit at the end of the day. If that is not my goal then I wont be in business for very long. If a business decides that they do not want anyone carrying weapons in their business that is their right. As a cwp holder, if I do not feel safe going into that business without my weapon I have the choice of going somewhere else where I can. I rarely visit restaurants that sell alcohol for consumption on site. That is because I can not legally carry my weapon in there. When I do go to a restaurant that sells alcohol to eat lunch then I am taking a calculated risk that nothing is going to happen. We have to find a good balance between being a tree hugging pacifist that likes to think all CWP holders are paranoid or the 2nd amendment survivalist that thinks you must be locked and loaded 24x7 no matter where you are. There, that ought to set some folks on fire this morning. LOL...

[NoToughGuy]

I could definitely see how the store could be liable having stripped your legal right to protect yourself in their store. It's going to take a lawsuit like that to make these establishments think twice. IMHO guns are less of a liability than the lack there of.

[Boatswain2PA]

Soooo, I have a paint store and I don't particularly like firearms. I have posted NO GUNS ALLOWED in plain sight IAW State Law. Now, per your question, I'll have to provide stock clerks/SWAT employees to keep the area secure and stocked. Who will be eating this additional cost? Just asking :>)

If it costs your paint store more to have the Anti-CCW sign (in the form of increased liability and/or increased security), then maybe you won't put up the Anti-CCW sign.

[ezkl2230]

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Interesting. I find the quote you include with your post to be diametrically opposed to the point of view you express in this post. I guess the implication is that the only rights you are truly interested in protecting are your own. You are your own minority? Because, if you truly believe the idea underlying this quote, then, regardless of your personal view of concealed or open carry, you would also defend the right of other individuals to carry despite your own discomfort.

As for your question, the answer is Yes - you DO have an obligation to insure that, if you deny others their right to carry on the premises of your business, other measures are in place to mitigate the potential for harm to come to your customers. That is part of the cost of doing business in these times in which we live. The alternative is that you understand that you will probably lose some business because some individuals will not shop in stores that require them to check their right to self-defense at the door. Either way, it has the potential to affect your bottom line to some degree. That is the reality of doing business these days.

[buddy]

As someone who owns a business, and does NOT have any gun signage, I can tell you that I should be able to refuse service to anyone I want, without violating the civil rights act of 64. I keep a handgun at my side in my office, and have several customers who carry when they come in. I do not know these customers well enough to know if they have any firearm knowledge or not, or if they even know anything about guns at all. But I choose, as a business owner, to allow guns in our office. If I did not, who are you (or the government) to tell me otherwise.
As a wise man said to me in a different context "life is fraught with peril. thinking that the government can legislate, or we can sue, our way to safety is just foolish"
. Funny, I just got done watching atlas shrugged for the 3rd time last night. Rand's writings are real to me. Laissez nous faire.

[nogods]

I could definitely see how the store could be liable having stripped your legal right to protect yourself in their store. It's going to take a lawsuit like that to make these establishments think twice. IMHO guns are less of a liability than the lack there of.

what "legal right to protect yourself" on someone else's property are you referring to?

[wizard]

Many businesses posted immediately after Nov. 1st here in WI. The municipality I live in had a meeting to determine if they would allow carry in the town bldgs. Advised to wait til there was case law on this issue by the town laywer, our municipal bldgs are not posted. I have not noticed a posted business in my town as of yet. I know several were thinking of it, but due to the way our law is written, the business is not liable for injury due to an incident were one used a concealed weapon, so I think many people think that they are covering there six by posting. As for me, if it is posted, I will not patronize them. If they think that a law abiding people are a threat they need to wake up. I am also a bussiness owner. It is not the "permit" holder I fear, it is the criminal who has no respect for the working man and feels he can take whatever he wants because he has a gun. I realize some insurance companys have you against the wall.(I would switch) but I think here in WI we got a fairly good deal on the carry law, although long in comming

So I think that if a business wants your patronage, they should provide a reasonably safe enviroment for you or allow you to carry.

[jelewill]

I have tried and tried, to understand why people think that posting signs to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their legal and constitutional right, to carry a handgun concealed,for their personal protection,is of any benefit to anyone. It only gives the people who carry illegally, and with intent to do harm, the incentive to do so, in their stores. It also makes one who is law-abiding and legal, want to go spend their money elsewhere.