General Categories > Carry Issues
Panera Bread bans guns
AAllen:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on September 09, 2014, 03:59:07 PM ---No, you don't have to go to Panera. However, if you go there, you have a reasonable expectation of safety. Think of slipping on a wet floor in a super market as an example. I don't think there is any case law yet that specifically deals with "protecting" patrons from violence.
With that said, a federal judge just ruled that the Aurora, CO theater where the mass shooting took place "could have reasonably enough foreseen the danger of such an attack to be held liable for it".
Now, I'm no attorney but if you ask your customers to lower their ability to defend themselves it seems "legally foreseeable" that they are at greater risk to violent attacks.
--- End quote ---
The case law on this is very murky, as you have said there is the recent Aurora ruling, but there are also rulings against laws that require businesses to allow carry (removing their property rights) that are related, the ones that come to mind are out of Oklahoma. This is a very new area of law, adding firearms to the public safety issues businesses must deal with and there needs to be scholarly research that is published on the issue before a case could be brought. This is much like getting the original Heller verdict, Alan Gotlieb had the idea that someday that case would happen when he formed the SAF back in the early 1970's. But he also knew that based upon how things were then the verdict would go against us. That is why the SAF, NRA etc. has spent so much money getting articles published in law reviews and funding research into crime statistics. Even though nobody thought that everything was in place for that verdict there was enough that it came out in our favor, a little luck was involved along with lots of work that Alan Gura (For those that do not know he got a flat $10,000 for that case and had to cover all expenses from that. The case took years before a verdict came out of the Supreme Court) did not get paid well enough for.
JTH:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on September 09, 2014, 03:59:07 PM ---No, you don't have to go to Panera. However, if you go there, you have a reasonable expectation of safety. Think of slipping on a wet floor in a super market as an example. I don't think there is any case law yet that specifically deals with "protecting" patrons from violence.
--- End quote ---
Slipping on a non-marked wet floor has to do with the STORE causing the accident.
The discussion at hand, however, somehow makes the business responsible for other people's actions.
--- Quote ---With that said, a federal judge just ruled that the Aurora, CO theater where the mass shooting took place "could have reasonably enough foreseen the danger of such an attack to be held liable for it".
--- End quote ---
Yep, I read that awhile back, and think it is a horrible idea---and one that will get overturned on appeal.
After all, it effectively means that any business you go into is now suddenly liable (and able to be sued) for pretty much any accidents, incidents, or altercations that occur in them, as the argument will be that someone should have foreseen such a thing and prepared for it. Which, of course, is nonsense.
You know, Kroger's should have foreseen that mob assault that occurred in their parking lot, and had security out there. Obviously, they should be sued.
Matter of fact, we know that LOTS of car break-ins, petty theft, and muggings happen in parking lots of malls. And malls have LOTS of money---they should be sued, because they KNOW things like that happen, and they don't have security in all lots at all times.
--- Quote ---Now, I'm no attorney but if you ask your customers to lower their ability to defend themselves it seems "legally foreseeable" that they are at greater risk to violent attacks.
--- End quote ---
Again---the idea that private businesses are now responsible for the actions of outside individuals makes little sense to me. I'll note that my personal opinion is that people are responsible for themselves, and if they think there is an increased risk due to a particular business practice, they either need to accept that, or make a choice to go elsewhere---as opposed to saying "well, it is my choice to go there, but it is their responsibility to take care of me."
--- Quote from: farmerbob on September 09, 2014, 03:59:48 PM ---I'm right there with jthhapkido on the open carry but when does this start to infringe on constitutional rights? If carrying a firearm and the right of self defense are basic civil rights then I believe these are rights we should have everywhere.
--- End quote ---
So, property rights, private ownership, etc---all of these should be overridden by other rights?
Another way of putting it: Your rights should override other people's rights?
I own a business. I have the right to choose the circumstances under which I will allow people to enter my business. I have the right to deny people access to my building, based on my choices. If I say "no hats" then you can't come in my building wearing a hat. If you choose to come into my building, then you are choosing to not wear a hat. You don't have to come into my building.
If I say "no humans under the age of 12" then that's it. If I say "no guns" then that's the rule. (I note I'm fine with legally carried, responsibly handled firearms in my building. Open or concealed, don't care.)
If you don't like any of my business rules, you have the ability to not use my business (or enter the building) and also the ability to speak your piece to other people to convince them not to use my business.
The idea that one person's rights trump another's rights in this case makes little sense to me.
--- Quote ---I personally can think of several individual rights businesses at one time didn't have to allow in their business. More recently a bakery had to make a cake for a gay wedding.
--- End quote ---
Due to a specific Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation". If we had a law prohibiting service or entrance based on equipment carry, we could argue the same thing. But we don't.
--- Quote ---I guess if you are a gun owner no one cares if you are discriminated against.
--- End quote ---
No, most people don't seem to care that gun owners are discriminated against, even though we are some of the most stereotyped, villified-without-cause, and poorly treated groups out there.
farmerbob:
These companies are in it for a profit, not to take sides on political issues, their hand was called by a few rudely carrying long guns. I think as a business they probably did what they had to do. I hope people respect that fact and not OC in their stores or no gun signs might be next. http://www.guns.com/2014/09/09/restaurant-cites-panera-warmth-as-reason-to-join-bloomberg-group-on-no-guns-policy/
Dan W:
--- Quote from: AAllen on September 09, 2014, 04:07:31 PM --- They do not want to be part of the show, why can't we respect that?
--- End quote ---
Why did they not just stand silent...or say that they won't be swayed by any group? They could have just stated that they will abide by the law currently in place at their stores locations, but what they did was appease an anti gun, anti liberty group by furthering the public perception that guns are bad and so are the people that own them.
A public statement of a nation wide policy like that is not neutral, despite the actions they take afterward to try and play both ends against the middle.
Mudinyeri:
--- Quote from: jthhapkido on September 09, 2014, 05:41:44 PM ---Slipping on a non-marked wet floor has to do with the STORE causing the accident.
--- End quote ---
Not if a customer spilled the liquid.
Thomas, what your post, as a whole, demonstrates is a failure to understand society's current bent to always hold someone else accountable (never the individual) - preferably someone else with deep pockets. Society has made the rules. We can either ignore them or we can use them to our advantage.
As a business owner, you no longer have the right in this country to refuse service to someone if that someone is a protected minority. Refusing service has simply been labeled as a form of discrimination and numerous court cases have held this to be "true" in contemporary society.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version