Can a Gun Free Zone be held liable?

[dunsho]

was listening to Tom Gresham Gun Talk on Podcast and a caller said he had his lawyers write Marriot hotels tell them that Marriot will be held responsible if something happened and he was unable to defend himself b/c Marriot now banned guns.

[NikeBauer21]

I brought up pretty much the same question a little while back.

It would be nice, but I highly doubt you would get a lawyer to take your case, or a judge to take it seriously...

http://forum.pafoa.org/lounge-108/10...-citizens.html

[thefirstndsecond]

I don't see how you couldn't sue.

There have been statement you can't sue until the law on the books has caused something.

Well if a gun free zone makes me disarm myself and have to attend the area for what ever reason then there should be negligence.

[LorDiego01]

I would sure hope not, especially if its private property, like a business or a residence.

You do not have a right to enter, if you are so afraid of gun-free zones, simply exercise your freedom to patronize another establishment.

That idiot threatening Marriot should save the money he is paying his lawyers to stay and support a hotel that has a more friendly firearm-policy.

[crazyyankee]

I would sure hope not, especially if its private property, like a business or a residence.

You do not have a right to enter, if you are so afraid of gun-free zones, simply exercise your freedom to patronize another establishment.

That idiot threatening Marriot should save the money he is paying his lawyers to stay and support a hotel that has a more friendly firearm-policy.

Wow, I think we agree on something..

The only exception I would consider is, Government controlled property.

While I agree that if it is on private property, then the owner of that property has the right to deny firearms on their property.

But if the government is denying you that right, by calling an area a "Gun Free Zone", then they may have a case for violating their Constitutional Rights.

But I'm not a lawyer and with the double speak they use they may not be able to go after the government..

[knight0334]

The person or persons ultimately liable is the shooter.

[crazyyankee]

The person or persons ultimately liable is the shooter.

While this is true, would not the Government be liable also, since they denied you (in general) the Right to bear arms, in a Gun Free Zone?

The government would be the one that denied you your Right to protect yourself, not the shooter..

The shooter would be ultimately responsible for doing the shooting, but the shooter would have no power to stop you from defending yourself with a firearm..

Does that make sense? I hope I got my point across..

[jcabin]

If I'm ever wounded or killed on college property, which is funded primarily by the state and federal government, rest assured I would own that school(if I was dead, my family), even if it took 10 years.

[Pagoda240]

Speaking of Gun Free Zones... I was in my local Burger King that has "Gun Free signs " posted but yet have an armed security guard at night. I asked the guard if he felt it was ironic that this place feels they need an armed guard but want to disarm the average citizen. He replied the other guard posted it becusae they had a problem with someone with a LTCF. At this point I could tell he was looking to see if i had a firearm. I will not deny or admit to having one but i don't go anywere without protection (condoms).

I asked if this was a Burger King policy or this store. He said it was the company that owns Burger King and he would get a copy for me next time i come in.

sorry back on point, If you can sue Mcdonalds for coffie being hot why could you not sue for no allowing you to protect yourself in a lawful manner.

[jcabin]

sorry back on point, If you can sue Mcdonalds for coffie being hot why could you not sue for no allowing you to protect yourself in a lawful manner.

Because that woman bought the coffee with a reasonable expectation that she wouldn't be handling a liquid so hot it would eat through her skin and permanently disfigure her flesh. That being said, IIRC, she spilled the coffee on herself, her bad, but the coffee was just too fuckin hot, so says the court.

On the other hand, nobody is forcing you to eat at mcdonalds. That is the arguement, and that is why you would lose.