Anti-Gun Policies and Insurance

[Willie D]

I've read more than a few complaints on gun forums about boycotting "X Company" because they don't allow guns or open carry on their premises and I shake my head because 9 times out of 10 it simply comes down to their insurance policies. There may be a few true "anti-firearms" companies but mostly it comes down to their bottom line.


Many insurance policies have exclusions for gun related damage or injuries, intentional or accidental, so any damages that might occur are paid out of pocket by the business. If a company made a conscious stated decision from the outset to allow their customers/employees to carry they probably couldn't even get insurance from any major carrier. Although they might look the other way, firearms related businesses and ranges frequently post "No Loaded Weapons" signs because even with their high risk premiums their coverage is not absolute.

If you CC no one will likely know you are running afoul of their policies, if you open carry you force their hand and they have to do whatever their legal dept says.


My girlfriend is in insurance and says this stuff is all a big "no-brainer" for the underwriters. I don't think that bean counters making policy is a good thing but as long as firearms = financial risk, insurance companies are going dictate companies' anti-firearms policys. Exposing your company to financial risk is generally not good business.

Whenever guns start to statistically lower risk or maybe a rash of lawsuits from unarmed victims change the risk equation, things will change. Until then...

[awkx]

I would be in favor of the Legislature creating a new tort action against places that disarm their customers/employees without providing adequate protection. In court buildings, they have metal detectors and armed guards to provide security for those who are required to disarm before entering. If a restaurant prohibits people from carrying firearms for self-defense, but it does nothing effective to prevent criminals from entering with guns, then it should be held liable to the disarmed victims of a shooting. Such liability would quickly change the insurance equation.

[pex]

Willie D, are you trying to make an excuse for the businessman? Insurance is just another element both they and we must stand up against to keep the nation honest.

[Willie D]

I'm not making excuses for anyone. This is just the way it is, presently.

I guess I'm just tired of all these threads bemoaning that this place or that doesn't want gun owners' business. Sure they want your business but they also want to stay in business. It's the same reason they won't let you skateboard or pogo stick at Home Depot. awkx might be right that some legeslative action or reverse lawsuits could bring about change but so long as the liability equation is the way it is all this boycott stuff is piss in the wind.

Their businesses may suffer a bit but I'm sure they would prefer that to getting completely wiped out by a wrongful death lawsuit because they knowingly permitted or encouraged firearms on the premises.

[Ranic]

Maybe someone should start an insurance company favoring guns because it makes the people safer in and around the business.

[pex]

I'm not making excuses for anyone. This is just the way it is, presently.

I guess I'm just tired of all these threads bemoaning that this place or that doesn't want gun owners' business. Sure they want your business but they also want to stay in business.

If the group of businessmen stood up against the ridiculous nature of insurance as we should stand up against the ridiculous nature of businessmen by not patronizing them with our business when they do not allow firearms, then in the end we will have a majority of business with good insurance who do not get wrongly sued and allow us to have firearms.

It can NEVER go that way without someone STANDING UP to the ill. Patrons don't buy insurance, businesses do.

This same ideal can be applied to the PSP and FFLs who keep trying to ask for social security numbers. Both they and we must stand up to the third party, or both of us will continue to be oppressed.

[tl_3237]

Any businessmen or insurance agents out there that can give us a standardized clause that mandates banning firearms or other weapons carried by patrons? What other policy prohibitions are usually imposed?

I can see when the business is obviously gun related (ex gun show) that the policy might be tailored and forbid loaded firearms but I find it hard to believe that would be such a clause imposed on businesses totally unrelated (ex: restaurants, movies, etc) and further, even if there was a clause, I would expect that it would only apply to employees and other agents of the business -- not patrons -- since the business would not be liable for actions of non-agents.

[awkx]

Also, it would be nice if the Legislature clarified the tort laws so that it would be clear that allowing patrons to carry firearms would not give raise to legal liability.