Life and Liberty

Doug Tice – who’s taken and run with “The Big Question” after Eric Black’s departure – noted something from Saturday’s NARN broadcast:

Yesterday, on one of the Saturday afternoon “Northern Alliance Radio Network” talk shows on AM 1280 The Patriot, I heard two of the the allies — I believe, Mitch Berg (from shotinthedark.info) and Captain Ed (from captainsquartersblog.com) — discussing last week’s awful Nebraska mall shooting. Their take on it was intriguing.

Doug noted that, first, I…

…insisted that nearly all mass shootings in recent years have occured in “gun-free” zones.

Not surprisingly, evidence for these assertions has been compiled and disseminated by scholar John Lott, the famed advocate of the “more guns-less crime” theory.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist – or an economist – to note that the vast preponderance of spree killings – certainly all of the ones the media brings up – take place in “gun free zones”, in academic sources like Lott, as well as, er less-academic ones:

Schools. College campuses. Government buildings. The list goes on, and on, and on. And if there are exceptions to the rule, they are often as not found in “gun-free” states.

We can certainly argue the premise. The numbers are on my side, but there is most certainly an argument to be had.

But Tice goes on to the more interesting question:

But anyhow, the allies didn’t stop there. Apparently following the lead of Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, they argued that victims or victims’ families in this situation may have grounds for a lawsuit against the mall based on the gun ban.

No doubt there will, as usual, be lawsuits, alleging various reasons for holding the mall liable for the tragedy. But the new theory (new to me, anyhow) is this: By deliberately banning otherwise permitted guns from their property, the mall managers exposed their customers to greater danger from criminal violence, since the ban ensured that no one would have the means to return fire.

Not “legally”, anyway. Fact is, if Nebraska’s law is anything like Minnesota’s, then carrying illegally in the store would have been a legal infraction, punishable by a fairly trivial fine. I’m not sure if there’d be any additional penalty to a carry permit holder actually using a permitted gun in a posted space in legal self-defense, or if a jury would ever convict them of it if they had done so. I don’t know that there’s ever been a case on the subject.

But I digress. The fact remains that the Westroads Mall had declared itself a no-gun zone – for those who follow the niceties of the law, anyway. And I, like most carry-permit holders, would have honored that request – by keeping my gun, out of there. Also myself; I don’t go where I’m not wanted, as a rule, and I don’t spend my money there, either.

Tice cuts to the, er, Big Question:

Interesting, but also puzzling.

Granting, for the sake of argument, the Lottian view that gun-free status makes a place of business more dangerous for its patrons, this lawsuit theory seems a surprising position for conservatives to take, since they presumably are defenders of private property rights.

True. (And to be perfectly accurate, I’m not entirely sure Ed shares my views on this issue; guns are pretty much my turf, among the NARN crew).

Doesn’t a property owner have a right to ban guns from his property, even if it is unwise to do so? And aren’t those who believe such a ban puts them at risk free not to enter his property?

Yes, and yes. It’s a freedom I generally exercise, too. As noted above, I rarely if ever patronize posted businesses, if there is a reasonable alternative.

Aren’t customers assuming any risk, and waiving any right to recompense, when they knowingly and voluntarily enter a gun-free zone?

I’m not aware that there is any law or precedent about this. Has there ever been a case with a:

  1. legal activity, whose practicioners are…
  2. …permitted by the state to carry out the activity with…
  3. …an object that is legal – a firearm – for the express purpose of…
  4. …defending themselves and bystanders from…
  5. …an illegal activity that also happens to be a lethal threat?

…being enjoined for matters of a shopkeeper’s pure personal preference (as opposed to an empirical hazard – which, let us not forget, doesn’t exist with concealed carry permit holders)?

I’m trying to think of any situation that’d be even analogous. Barring defibrilators from your store (they can be misused!)? Banning asthma inhalers (they can be abused)?

Here’s the, er, Big Counterquestion: Does your property right trump my right to self-preservation?

The situation seems roughly comparable to the debate over bar and restaurant smoking bans. Conservatives as a rule argue that smoking bans are improper because a property owner should be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not. People who fear secondhand smoke need not work there or take their leisure there — or so the conservative line usually goes.

By and large conservatives can be expected to respond with disdain to the idea of lawsuits based on harm from voluntary exposure to secondhand smoke.

True. But the two ideas aren’t really similar. If I’m in a bar, smell smoke, and decide I don’t like it, I (and my friends and family) can make an orderly exit with a reasonable chance of getting out alive.

If I’m in that same bar, and a spree killer stands in the doorway and starts blazing away, the decision loop is a lot tighter; neither I nor the bar owner can be reasonably assumed to have chosen this activity; it’s being inflicted on all of us against our will. The threat to my life, liberty and happiness isn’t at some hypothetical intersection of property rights and science. It is in the hands of a madman with a gun. A madman that the store owner has forbidden me to defend myself against, without (obviously, and indeed impossibly) safeguarding me and mine from him.
He’s put my right to live snugly behind his property rights.  Just as the owners of the Westroads Mall did.

And let’s not forget that while the science of secondhand smoke is very much up in the air, the science of hot lead is not.

Here are three questions — assuming, for this purpose, that both secondhand smoke and gun bans are hazardous to people voluntarily exposed to them.

Question 1: Is it possible, coherantly, to believe secondhand smoke lawsuits are ridiculous but gun-ban lawsuits make sense?

Question 2: Is coherance possible the other way around — secondhand smoke lawsuits are sensible but not gun-ban lawsuits?

Going to a bar and smoking are both voluntary activities. One may leave a bar and find a smoke-free place at ones’ leisure. One may not leave this life, metaphysics aside, to go to a different one if someone gives you secondhand lead. Being enjoined by a property owner from taking legal steps with a legal gun that one is legally permitted to carry to safeguard the life that you and yours have is a whole different level of importance.

And when you’re talking about government offices and public buildings, I think it’s even more clear-cut. The right to protect ones’ life, and ones family’s lives, exists on at least as high a moral plane as private property (and at least a plane higher than smoking).

Question 3: Again assuming the Lottian view correct, are gun bans by private businesses a market failure caused, as market failures often are, by inadequate information — in this case people’s failure to understand what really makes them unsafe? Is the mall owner’s self interest in attracting shoppers better served by what Lottians would consider the illusory safety of the advertised gun ban than by the actual safety of allowing guns?

When statistically tiny numbers of Americans were poisoned by tampered Tylenol, or sickened by tainted spinach, sales of both dropped through the floor, creating marketing nightmares for both industries.

Against that – in just two incidents in “gun-free zones” in the past year, over forty people have died. In Minnesota, ten people have died in two school shooting incidents in the past few years – all of them on “gun-free” property. I’m not sure where that places the relative odds of dying of tainted beef to being shot by a madman at a posted business or federally “gun-free” school, but I’m guessing it’s pretty daunting.

I think the market has at least partially answered Doug’s question; the vast majority of the stores that “posted” themselves in the wake of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act have quietly dropped the signs in recent years; perhaps some were swayed by the protests of people like me, who made our displeasure at the unwarranted bigotry known. The vast majority, I suspect, simply realized that the law-abiding gun owner was less a threat than the average customer, and that Wes Skoglund was a lying moron.

If it takes a lawsuit to convince the rest that my right to protect my life is on a par with their property right – or at least that trying to trump my right to survive with their property rights is an act with consequences – I think I’m willing to go with that.

Am I missing something?

UPDATE:  Of course I’m missing something!  Or at least in Minnesota, according to the panoply of lawyers in the comment section below. 

So the legal route is, at least under Minnesota law, a non-starter (I don’t know about Nebraska law), and as commenter Jay Reding points out, the market does seem to be taking care of things in Minnesota. 

And commenter JoelR notes that, since carrying ones’ legally-permitted handgun in a posted store is an infraction that might be punishable by a $25 fine in Minnesota, it’s pretty much worth committing “civil disobedience” anyway, as long as one acts legally (to say nothing of tactfully and respectfully – keeping the gun carefully concealed and not making an ass of oneself.  Which is always a good idea).

But let me emphasize; while the law would seem to hold that the stores are legally blameless for anyone getting murdered because nobody can legally carry a firearm to defend themselves, it still doesn’t make it right.  Hence, I’ll continue to avoid posted stores; less out of fear of mass-murder than out of protest against bigotry against the demonstrably law-abiding.

Like me.

58 thoughts on “Life and Liberty

  1. Mitch reality-checked: “Am I missing something?”

    Aside from the patently frivolous nature of such a lawsuit, you mean?

    But it’s nice to know you’re all willing to sacrifice your support of private property rights and opposition to using the courts for social engineering just so you can pack heat in the Gap.

  2. Aside from the patently frivolous nature of such a lawsuit, you mean?

    I suppose in clown world, where the bad guys’ guns just sproing “Bang” flags, it might seem that way.

    In the real reality-based community, of course, not so much.

    But it’s nice to know you’re all willing to sacrifice your support of private property rights

    Nah. Just put them where they belong in the hierarchy.

    Sorta like the left does, only this time for things that really matter.

    Look – post your store to your heart’s content. Just be ready – as with all private property decisions – for the consequences.

  3. Sure, consequences ilike boycotts by the odd gun nut. But don’t worry about getting sued for trying to keep guns out of your store.

    But what does Angryclown know? Maybe one of your right-wing lawyer pals can educate us on what legal duty an owner, who bans guns from his Orange Julius stand, has to one patron who gets shot by another patron. You might also ask ’em to address the issue of proximate cause.

  4. Sure, consequences ilike boycotts by the odd gun nut. But don’t worry about getting sued for trying to keep guns out of your store.

    Wow, Clown, it’s a good thing you don’t work in a field where clarity and accuracy matter, preferring instead the morally ambiguous ethos of the center ring!

    Nobody’s “sueing people for trying to keep guns out of their store”. That’s their right under Minnesota law.

    We’re talking about sueing for barring people from defending themselves from a murder that actually happened, and that was exacerbated – in a way, facilitated – by that action.

    But what does Angryclown know? Maybe one of your right-wing lawyer pals can educate us on what legal duty an owner, who bans guns from his Orange Julius stand, has to one patron who gets shot by another patron.

    If the owner makes is demonstrably easier for that person to shoot me?

    You might also ask ‘em to address the issue of proximate cause.

    You kiss your cousin with that mouth?

  5. ilike boycotts by the odd gun nut

    Well, there ARE 50,000 of us in Minnesota. That’s a pretty significant market.

    I don’t know how many of us have more-or-less quietly stopped going to posted stores (I know some carry permittees that complained, others that left biz cards explaining why they were no longer shopping there; I think I only complained to one store).

    I DO know that, by my observation, at least 75% of stores that were posted in 2005 are no longer.  If the market were really that hostile to the good guys, that wouldn’t be happening.
    And I’ve made a point of thanking stores that have dropped the absurd posting, and I know I’m not alone.

  6. You’ve covered the subject just fine, Mitch; I don’t really have anything to add on it. I’m just sitting here with my morning coffee being croggled over Tice’s concern that you’re not being conservative enough. Over at the Strib, are crocodile tears the new, err, Black?

  7. All Angryclown is saying is good luck with that legal theory, Mitch. You’ll need it. Desperately.

  8. But then what does Angryclown know about law? Go ahead and ask a lawyer. Angryclown will go back to juggling and riding his unicycle.

  9. You’ll need it. Desperately.

    I’m sure there are some extra penumbras floating about the ether, waiting to be codified.

    But then what does Angryclown know about law? Go ahead and ask a lawyer. Angryclown will go back to juggling and riding his unicycle.

    So on the odd chance that you find a lawyer shacked up with the bearded lady, perhaps you could have him favor us with what the legal problem actually is?

    Because we read about lawsuits all. the. time that would seem to have not-very-proximate causes, and that trample all over peoples’ property rights.

    I suppose, you being a liberal clown, that it depends on what the proximate cause of “proximate cause is”, is.

    But hey, glad to see y’all suddenly interested in property rights! First “civil liberties”, then “fiscal responsibility”, and now property – pretty soon, you guys’ll be conservatives!

  10. Among the legal problems are the lack of a legal duty, of business owners, to permit firearms in the their stores (a plaintiff would have to show that banning guns makes shopping unreasonably unsafe) and causation. A plaintiff would also have to show causation – that the particular plaintiff (or, even more remotely, some other patron) would more likely than not have taken down the shooter and prevented the plaintiff’s death or injuries if the store weren’t gun-free. Not knowing anything about Minnesota law, it is very possible there are gun laws addressing the issue of guns in private businesses that would supercede a civil cause of action.

    And there have been tort reform laws passed that make it hard to sue third parties for the criminal misuse of firearms by criminals. (In every other context, you gun nuts argue that the criminal is solely at fault – not the gun maker, seller or business owner who permits guns on his premises, no?)

    Again, while Angryclown is knowledgeable on all subjects, this is not an area of particular expertise. But Angryclown would counsel any lawyer taking on such a case to get paid by the hour rather than by contingent fee.

    But don’t take it from Angryclown. Run it one of your right-wing pals with a J.D. Isn’t Thorley a lawyer?

  11. Ugh… let’s try this again, shall we? This time with good HTML…

    I *almost* have a J.D…

    In theory, you could use the Learned Hand Balancing Test here (B<PL). B is the burden on the storeowner (in this case, minimal). P is the probability of a loss and L is the magnitude of the loss. Conduct is negligent if the burden of prevention is outweighed by the probability of the harm times the gravity of the loss.

    Even though the burden is light, the probability of the harm is fairly low. How many malls are there in this country and how many times has there been a shooting in one?

    I’m on the private property side here — property owners have the right to exclude firearms if they wish. Concealed carry permit owners have the equal right to go to stores that don’t ban guns. If the number of stores which ban guns is decreasing, then the market is working in the way it should. Using tort law to enforce someone’s public policy preferences just rubs my card-carrying member of the Federalist Society soul the wrong way.

  12. I’m *gulp* with AC on this one. You can’t allow a suit to go forward based on a property owner’s good faith exercise of a right that’s been explicitly granted to him by law, no matter how improvident that exercise may be. It’s the archetypical frivilous lawsuit.

    I am a JD.

  13. a plaintiff would have to show that banning guns makes shopping unreasonably unsafe)

    Cool; multiple victim public shootings seem to take place almost exclusively in victim disarmament zones. (Not quite exclusively; see the one at the Colorado church this last weekend, where the perp’s activities — and the perp — were terminated by a security guard.)

    All in all, multiple victim public shootings are rare; they don’t rise anywhere near the level of threat of swimming pools or bicycle riding. But, as we’ve seen at Cold Springs, Columbine, VT, and now in the Nebraska mall, they happen where the perp has some reason to think that there will be ample unarmed victims.

  14. Malls are not cooperatives. The property management company would have made the decision to establish a victim disarmament zone (VDZ). The individual business would have no choice even if they prefered CC customers.

    The store that lost an employee to the shooter would have a better action than the employees family, unless the lease had specific language that held them harmless should a shooting/bombing, etc occur. It would be interesting to read the leases of the businesses in that mall.

  15. It’s not at all clear, by the way, that the Mall of America can post. The law was clearly intended to give the right to post or not to the operators of the stores, not the landlord. (Landlords aren’t allowed to restrict the right to carry of their renters or the renters’ guests.)

    Some stores in the Mall have posted — I gave up shopping at Old Navy at the Mall until they took their silly signs down — but most store owners apparently don’t wish to put up the victim disarmament signs. After the MCPPA passed in 2003, the Mall’s anchor stores came in for some pressure from the local victim disarmament groups to post, but none of them ever did.

    I routinely carry when I go to the Mall, with no problem. While I’m willing to be a test case as to whether or not the Mall’s signs are valid under the law — if I’m wrong, I’m out as much as $25 — I’m just willing, not particularly eager.

    Remember: the MCPPA requires a two-step process before that fine can be applied — the establishment must first post (or personally notify the permit holder), and, after that, the permit holder may be ordered to leave. Only if he (or she) stays after that order can the ticket be issued.

    Not a big deal.

    There is one exception — the Metropolitan Learning Alliance, the “school at the Mall” is, well, a school, and carry in schools by permit holders is prohibited without the specific permission of the principal or other person in charge of the school. Carrying there would be, for a permit holder, a misdemeanor, without that permission.

  16. Wait, the carry law explicitly gives store owners the right to ban armed patrons? Slam and dunk. Motions to dismiss and for sanctions granted.

  17. Well, the lawyers have had their say, and it seems I – a productive citizen who isn’t actively working to destroy our society from within (kidding – I’m kidding) non-lawyer, am wrong.

    And Jay makes a good point; the market is working as it should. And it’s up to the likes of, ulp, me (among others) to get the word out to the rest of the world that “gun-free zones” are really “safe murderer zones”.

  18. AC, as they say on the same Internet forum where “FAIL” originated: “Arguing on the Internet is like winning in the Special Olympics; even when you win, you’re still retarded.”

  19. I say bring the lawsuit. Stupider things have been the basis of lawsuits, and a lot of them have made a lot of people rich even though they were logically without merit. And these suits have resulted in a change in public attitude and behavior more quickly than the market might demand, even if the suit is properly thrown out of court. Why else would you find instructions on your TV not to use it in the bathtub, or not to pick up your lawnmower to trim hedges?

    If it were possible, I would sue the legislators for failing to properly discharge their duties by creating a false expectation of security, telling people that those signs “protected them.” After all, since those signs went up, we haven’t had a single convenience store or licquor store holdup, right?

  20. I am also a non-lawyer, but I have to say a case like this seems like legislating something conservatives want (sane, right, and good though it may be) through the courts. From what I read, our courts behave badly enough (in this way) without conservative encouragement. :-/

    It hurts to not argue against angryclown. *tears*

  21. “Well, the lawyers have had their say…”
    which means almost nothing – if the clown were right there wouldn’t be an 18+ month backlog of lawsuits in district court

    the MCPPA requires
    only in MN – bet its different in Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, Etc

    When the sign banning guns is posted at the entrance to the Mall the Property Managers did that – NOT the orange julius franchise on the second floor

  22. Cathcart prattled: “AC, as they say on the same Internet forum where “FAIL” originated: “Arguing on the Internet is like winning in the Special Olympics; even when you win, you’re still retarded.” ”

    Cathcart thinks you Mitchketeers are all retards and that Angryclown is your king.

    We are making progress.

  23. Good luck with that lawsuit, kel! Sounds like you’ll be going pro se, like those guys who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional.

  24. “Am I missing something?”

    It’s not that they’ve told you that you couldn’t bring in your own gun.

    It’s that they’ve promised you that there were no guns, yet took no actions at all to ensure that this was the case.

    Did they have metal detectors? Did they inspect purses and backpacks? Did they have armed security present?

    Did they take _any_ action to ensure that there were no guns present in the mall?

    No.

    But told you that you may not bring in yours, that there would be no guns present, and made a strong implication that you’d thereby be safe.

  25. Unsurprisingly, Dege nails it. Whether or not a court would be as sensible remains to be seen.

    “Bring it on,” says I. Somebody injured because the operators of the mall promised — but didn’t make even a token effort to deliver — that “gun free” environment may not have a case; the law, like angryclown, can be an ass.

  26. AC, how would you respond if the argument were framed this way:

    A customer at a store is a business invitee. The merchant owes a common law duty of care to the customer to protect the customer from harm the merchant knows of (or reasonably should have known of) such as a slippery floor. The merchant fulfills that duty of care by taking prompt action to remedy the problem once known (mop the floor when it’s reported). The merchant can be held liable for failing to promptly take action to address a harm of which it knew, or should have known.

    This theory is similar to the claim made against McDonalds by the drive-through customer who put a cup of hot coffee between her legs. McDonalds should have known of the risk and taken steps to prevent the harm. Note well – that may have been a silly claim, but it was a successful claim, not a frivolous claim. No sanctions were awarded against the plaintiff; on the contrary, punitive damages were awarded against McD’s.

    In the sue-the-mall scenario, the harm is getting shot by another store patron, the merchant should have known of the risk because the overwhelming proportion of mass shootings occur in public places, the mall owner failed to take steps to protect the customer (metal detectors, adequate numbers of well trained security, etc) and actively encouraged the harm by postig the site as a gun-free zone and by preventing otherwise legally permitted pistol carriers from defending themselves.

    Note that Minnesota’s statute provides immunity to sheriffs who issue pistol permits and to trainers who certify permit holders, but does NOT confer immunity on business owners to elect to post their properties as gun-free zones.

    I concede there is a proof problem – can I show by a preponderance of evidence that the merchant should have known that posting the sign and banning legally permitted guns materially increased the risk of harm to the customers? But that’s a quantity of proof issue, it doesn’t invalidate the underlying theory.

    Joe Doakes, Como Park, Saint Paul

  27. Also, Tice fails to note that a private lawsuit to redress a breach of a common law duty is completely different from a government imposed ban on otherwise lawful activities, and that the common law of torts predates pretty much all of American jurisprudence.

    There is no conservative hypocrisy here, and no judicial activism.

    Joe Doakes

  28. Good luck to you, Joe Doakes. Both examples are off-point. In the first, the business owner fails to remedy a known dangerous condition on his property, resulting in injury – the fact pattern of 1,000 slip-and-falls filed every day. In the second, McDonald’s serves coffee that is much hotter than its competitors’. (It’s served extra hot so customers don’t notice it’s a relatively cheap grade of coffee.) And McDonalds’ is on notice of the danger because lots of other customers have made claims and complaints.

    In the Mall hypothetical, the claimed dangerous situation is the lightning-strike possibility that some nut will go postal in the store. And your legislature has said it is reasonable for him to judge that the store is safer without the dangers posed by legal guns – including accidents and arguments that get out of hand (rare, but certainly no rarer than a mass killer in the store).

    Even if some nutty judge says you can put on a parade of gun-nut academics to swear that we’re all safer when everybody in Victoria’ s Secret is armed, you’ve still gotta prove that your client would have escaped harm because, more likely than not, he or someone else would have first taken out the shooter. (Which would be very hard to do if your guy gets shot in the first couple of minutes, don’t you think?)

    And even if you get past all these problems, your hypothetical suggests that store owners meet their duty to protect patrons against homicidal maniacs by permitting – though not ensuring – that random customers be armed.

    At any moment, the shop owner would have no idea how many people in the store are carrying, whether or not their carrying lawfully or whether they have any training. Let’s say it’s the nuns’ day out at the mall and nobody’s carrying while some guy (Cathcart, say) goes berserk and shoots on of them. Is the store owner liable or not?

    Even if Angryclown follows your reasoning and agrees there is a duty (which he does not), the duty would actually have to be addressed by hiring armed security or using metal detectors – something the owner can reasonably direct and control. It’s silly to suppose that store owners would discharge such a duty simply by taking down a “gun-free zone” sign. (Think for a moment what your premeses liabiltity carrier will think of the “random citizens” method.)

    But there’s no duty because the circumstance is so rare; no causation because guns in malls create their own off-setting dangers and because plaintiffs couldn’t prove they’d not have been injured but for the “gun-free” rule; and because store owners would simply beef up security, not trust you wacky wingnut vigilantes to do it for them.

  29. OK, now we’re getting somewhere:

    In the Mall hypothetical, the claimed dangerous situation is the lightning-strike possibility that some nut will go postal in the store. And your legislature has said it is reasonable for him to judge that the store is safer without the dangers posed by legal guns

    True…

    including accidents and arguments that get out of hand (rare, but certainly no rarer than a mass killer in the store).

    Actually, in a typical year nationwide fewer people are killed in error (as opposed to *justifiably* under applicable law) by carry permit holders (as opposed to the general armed public, who do not apply to this argument, except in Vermont and Alaska, which have no permit requirement) than died in less than an hour at Virginia Tech. And although I don’t remember the exact numbers, I might be being charitable.

    you’ve still gotta prove that your client would have escaped harm because, more likely than not, he or someone else would have first taken out the shooter.

    True…

    (Which would be very hard to do if your guy gets shot in the first couple of minutes, don’t you think?)

    You ascribe superhuman abilities to crazies with guns that – given the list of spree-killers taken out by citizens with guns – just aren’t in evidence.

    And even if you get past all these problems, your hypothetical suggests that store owners meet their duty to protect patrons against homicidal maniacs by permitting – though not ensuring – that random customers be armed.

    Seems like a fair point.

    the duty would actually have to be addressed by hiring armed security or using metal detectors – something the owner can reasonably direct and control.

    And which are, to some extent, offputting to customers, but that’s their problem, right?

    It’s silly to suppose that store owners would discharge such a duty simply by taking down a “gun-free zone” sign. (Think for a moment what your premeses liabiltity carrier will think of the “random citizens” method.)

    Well, let’s do think about that. I agree with Jay Reding – the market is slowly but surely taking care of the problem without the need for litigation. But the market doesn’t seem to be upping liability rates for non-posted stores in Shall-Issue states, either…

    But there’s no duty because the circumstance is so rare

    True to a point: society guards against many rarer dangers.

    ; no causation because guns in malls create their own off-setting dangers

    When referring to the law-abiding permittee, that is actually statistically false.

    and because plaintiffs couldn’t prove they’d not have been injured but for the “gun-free” rule;

    Possibly fair, although if I get shot at a place (most likely a school) where I’m not allowed to carry, you can be most certain that I’ll look into it, since I very definitely would try.

    because store owners would simply beef up security, not trust you wacky wingnut vigilantes to do it for them.

    Just like they used to do to keep the Jews and the Irish out.  Until they learned better!

  30. The only point you seem to take issue with is the observation that guns in public carry dangers of their own. You concede that there are dangers, but you say (without providing any support), that they are negligible. But in any case, you limit your universe to people licensed to carry – who in a strict gun control state are likely a safer class of people than in a state where almost anybody can carry. But even if you don’t agree, you still impose artificial limits on the universe of gun-toting patrons, who may or may not be legal.

    If you’re going to say that a store owner has a duty to protect his patrons from mass killers, even if I grant (which I don’t), that permitting lawful guns into the store helps protect patrons, that’s just the beginning of the analysis. All of a sudden he has to worry about how many guns, licensed *and* illegal, are in his store. And he discharges this new duty not by hoping some random citizen takes down the shooter after the first couple of shots, but to try to ensure the shooter doesn’t get into the store at all – which means metal detectors or, at least, armed security.

    I think if you follow the implications to their logical conclusions, you’ll agree that, from your perspective or Angryclown’s, it doesn’t make sense.

  31. For starters, I’ve become unconvinced (at the moment) that litigation is the right idea. (Where’s Peevish when you need him?)

    But…

    The only point you seem to take issue with is the observation that guns in public carry dangers of their own. You concede that there are dangers, but you say (without providing any support), that they are negligible.

    Let’s be specific – which, since we’re talking the law, seems appropriate. I hold that the danger of the trained, demonstrably law-abiding permit holder causing a problem is in effect negligible.

    I’d refer you to the results of the first five years of Florida’s shall issue law, in which legal permits were revoked for criminal activity at a rate indicating a crime rate about 1/100 of the population at large. This pattern has repeated itself consistently in every shall-issue state.

    But in any case, you limit your universe to people licensed to carry – who in a strict gun control state are likely a safer class of people than in a state where almost anybody can carry.

    Of course I do – they’re the apples that we’re comparing to apples, here.

    Nebraska has a “shall issue” law, similar to Minnesota, Florida, Pennsylvania (and, in effect, Connecticut); the ONLY non-law-enforcement people legally allowed to carry concealed handguns are permittees. If you don’t have a CCW permit, you are in violation of any number of laws, many of them felonies.

    The posting requirements are only directed at CCW permit holders; cops are exempt (largely) from observing them, and civilian non-permittees are committing a felony by carrying an unpermitted gun at all.

    And just so we’re clear on things – the gun’s “licensing” is not the issue, here, either in Nebraska or Minnesota (or most of the country) in the same sense that it is in New York. Apples and axles, although I know it’s not your subject…

    But even if you don’t agree, you still impose artificial limits on the universe of gun-toting patrons, who may or may not be legal.

    It’s not an artificial limit; it is the population – the ONLY population – affected by the “No Guns” posting in the first place. Saying “no guns in the hands of non-permit-holders” is like saying “Don’t rob us”; carrying without the permit is a crime in and of itself!

    If you’re going to say that a store owner has a duty to protect his patrons from mass killers, even if I grant (which I don’t), that permitting lawful guns into the store helps protect patrons

    , that’s just the beginning of the analysis. All of a sudden he has to worry about how many guns, licensed *and* illegal, are in his store.

    He has to worry about illegal guns already, and the legal ones (actually, the legal owners) are statistically not an issue.

    And he discharges this new duty not by hoping some random citizen takes down the shooter after the first couple of shots, but to try to ensure the shooter doesn’t get into the store at all – which means metal detectors or, at least, armed security.

    I’ll grant that one, since it does seem to apply to the owner’s *control* of the security.

    I think if you follow the implications to their logical conclusions, you’ll agree that, from your perspective or Angryclown’s, it doesn’t make sense.

    I admitted litigation might not make sense several posts ago.

    So far, anyway.

  32. angryclown said: “who in a strict gun control state are likely a safer class of people than in a state where almost anybody can carry”

    You want to back that up? I don’t think you can do it, unless by “a state where almost anybody can carry” you mean some imaginary state.

    I also wonder why you differentiate between “licensed *and* illegal” “gun-toting patrons”. I don’t think you usually do that.

  33. AC often means imaginary people, situations, and other nonsense. He keeps talking about gun nuts as if they’ve actually shot people.

  34. They haven’t all shot people, badda. They just fantasize doing it until finally the voices tell ’em where and when.

  35. Mitch admitted: “I admitted litigation might not make sense several posts ago.”

    Angryclown will accept his win with dignity and appropriate regard for the vanquished.

  36. They just fantasize doing it until finally the voices tell ‘em where and when.

    Speaking of fantasies – did you ever move out of Passaic?

  37. “They just fantasize doing it until finally the voices tell ‘em where and when”

    That sounds scary, angryclown.

    Fantasies about what other people are thinking, especially crazy people, may inspire an irrational fear in you, but they are simply fantasies after all. Maybe you can spend your time being afraid of things that are real. 😉

  38. AssClown dreamed: “Again, while Angryclown is knowledgeable on all subjects..”

    BS Clown…I bet $10 you haven’t got the first clue where your wife hides your balls.

    =====================

    As usual, I seem to be the only consistent conservative in sight.

    Smoking ban and gun bans are perfectly analogous; private property owners should have the right to impliment either and we should be free to abide or go elsewhere.

    Now however, that leftist controlled governments have forced the one upon us in the interest of “the public good” they are utterly defenseless against the claim that quasi-public venues (such as malls and bars) should not be compelled to allow us the obvious benefits that a nice .40 cal automatic brings.

  39. AC is obviously not familiar with Vermont. In that terribly leftist state every non-felon can do concealed carry without a permit. And we all know exactly how much of a bloody battleground Vermont is! We all know how much safer Massachusetts is! And my goodness, California’s many restrictions have made it so much safer, too!

    Seriously, though, I don’t think the suits are the right way to go. You either respect people’s property and rights or you don’t. They have every right to ban you from the premises if you carry, and you have every right to refuse to enter if that offends you. You take the risk entering a place that forces you to disarm, nobody’s forcing you to go there. Personally, I tell them that those signs cost them at least six patrons.

  40. You’re comparing maple syrup to oranges, nerdboy. Vermont is a state largely without cities. The comparison to Massachusetts and California is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid.

  41. You’re comparing maple syrup to oranges, nerdboy. Vermont is a state largely without cities

    No, he’s comparing maple syrup to maple candy, for purposes of replying to your posts.

    Clown, your comments on the subject ooze with an almost-superstitious contempt for the law-abiding citizen – like everyone’s really just a mass-murderer waiting to happen. And yet the states with the loosest restrictions on *the law-abiding citizen* carrying guns have the lowest crime, and, in cases where they went from tight to loose restrictions – then at the very worst the change did no harm (and Lott showed that in fact over time the effect on crime was beneficial).

    No state that’s ever adopted a shall-issue law has even tried to repeal it. If it were a bad idea, you’d think…

    The comparison to Massachusetts and California is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid.

    So perhaps comparisons to Philadelphia, Denver, Dallas, Miami, Phoenix, Richmond, Seattle, Saint Paul, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Albuquerque, Kansas City and Saint Louis would be better?

    Or citiies in any of the almost-40 shall issue states?

  42. Okay, so we’ve shifted the conversation from a slam-dunk with sanctions awarded, to arguing whether the duty exists and how we’d prove it.

    I’m reminded of the Walmart photo case. A college student goes to Mexico, her friend takes a nude shower snapshot, the photo developer at Walmart copies it and distributes it around her hometown.

    A long line of cases held that Minnesota did not recognize the tort of invasion of privacy. In that case, the Supreme Court changed its mind and said we do, holding Walmart liable. Lake v. Walmart (1998).

    The present state of the law may not support the gun-free zone of danger lawsuit. But a plaintiff can argue for a good faith extension of existing law. Extending premises liability to hazards the mall owner exacerbated (by banning legally carried guns without providing an adequate substitute means of protection) might be a huge stretch in New York City, but maybe not so much in Omaha.

    With a few more law review articles and a creative plaintiff’s lawyer, the next gun-free zone massacre might be the tipping point.

    .

  43. As ac keeps ignoring: we have commonsense, mainstream, “shall issue” carry laws (or better, as in the case of Vermont and Alaska) in forty states now, with a diverse demographics: small towns, big cities (isn’t Philadelphia a big enough city, clownzie? Pennsylvania has a sane carry law), farmland; white, black, Hispanic . . . the whole deal.

    Seems to work just fine literally everywhere it’s been tried; not one state — ever — has even come close to repealing a “shall issue” carry law, and even in Minnesota, our local antis have mainly given up.

  44. Let’s see, duhClown makes a idiotic blanket statement about being safer in gun-controlling environs than in gun saturated areas and then calls someone stupid who mocks him on his statement. Yep, he chose his handle well!

  45. Gee, nerdbert. Maybe you can come up with a quote where I say that. Or maybe, once again, you have your head in your colon.

  46. We haven’t shifted at all, nate. The complaint would be dismissed out of hand. There’s no duty – you’re out of the courthouse on your ass. Angryclown understands your argument – he just thinks it’s legally far-fetched. And he wishes you good luck with all that, cause you’ll need it.

  47. joelr blathered: “As ac keeps ignoring: we have commonsense, mainstream, “shall issue” carry laws (or better, as in the case of Vermont and Alaska) in forty states now, with a diverse demographics: small towns, big cities (isn’t Philadelphia a big enough city, clownzie? Pennsylvania has a sane carry law), farmland; white, black, Hispanic . . . the whole deal.”

    Angryclown ignores nothing. Gun control is not a big issue for Angryclown, who lives in the safest big city in the U.S. and has no desire to own a gun. Angryclown simply enjoys pointing out the stupidities you resort to in making your arguments. Comparing Vermont – a rural state who’s biggest “city” would fit in Yankee Stadium with room to spare – with California, for example.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.