Jacobs: Make Businesses That Allow Guns Liable for the Cost of Injuries and Deaths



We wonder what Cody Jacobs’ reaction would be to making those same businesses liable for injuries and deaths caused by designating their premises gun-free zones.

At the same time that laws regulating publicly carried guns have been relaxed and eliminated, the amount of truly “public” spaces in America have been shrinking.  When most Americans go “out in public” they are often really going to privately owned spaces like strip malls, grocery stores, shopping malls, and big box stores. Even places that have traditionally been thought of as public are often under private control like sidewalks and parks.

Although states have relaxed their public carry laws, even the most permissive of these laws tend to allow private landowners to make their own decisions about whether to allow people to carry guns on their property. The upshot of this is that private businesses now have a tremendous amount of power to decide whether guns in public will really become commonplace or not.

My article argues that businesses ought to be held accountable for the consequences of these decisions through premises liability. Premises liability is a tort doctrine that holds landowners liable for dangerous conditions on their property. The classic example of this sort of liability is a “slip and fall” where a person is injured after slipping on debris on a business’ floor and then sues the business for allowing the dangerous condition to go unchecked.

In the gun context, businesses who choose to allow customers to carry guns onto their property ought to be held liable when that choice results in another customer’s injury or death. This would not force businesses to ban guns, rather it would force them to internalize the costs of allowing guns onto their property.  Businesses in areas where guns are popular might choose to simply eat the cost (or insure the cost) of this potential liability in order to continue to attract customers who would like to carry guns.

– Cody Jacobs in Firearms Law Mini-Symposium, Part VI: Guns in the Public Square


  1. avatar Swarf says:

    Sure, and make business that allow people to buy alcohol responsible for all drunk driving costs. And make places that allow people to buy cheeseburgers responsible for obesity-related deaths. And make places the create doctors responsible for malpractice. And on and on.

    Or, you could go fuck yourself, Cody.

    1. avatar Stretch Armstrong says:

      Actually ther is precedent for businesses being responsible for its patrons including serving alcohol. So it’s not much of a stretch no matter how angry swarf gets.

      1. avatar GDMF says:

        Stretch says it is not much of a stretch 🙂

        What thoroughly irritates me about these kinds of suggestions is that they totally dismiss any concept of *personal* responsibility.

        Nobody on the left seems to want any part of that, though… for themselves or anyone.

      2. avatar Swarf says:

        “Actually” that’s why I said buying alcohol, not drinking.

      3. avatar Ransom says:

        Yes… …SERVING alcohol. Not just selling it. I bartended for many years and had to watch for customer intoxication. More Like an FFL looking out for suspicious behavior, not Like Baskin Robbins deciding they do or do not want guns on the premises.

  2. avatar disillusioned says:

    Yea, Cody because the legally armed concealed (or open) carry population is responsible for so much carnage. You got it ass backwards.

    1. avatar Bre says:

      Just by reading the first dozen or so comments, it is clear no one understands what the author is arguing.

      Let me clarify legality and reason: the proposition is simple, if businesses take away the ability of their patrons’ effective self defense (life is a human right) then the business is obligated to account for it themselves and therefore if someone is injured by, say a burglar, then the victim can sue the business for failure to have sufficient security.

      In layman’s terms: if you don’t let people defend themselves on your property then you have to defend them, and if you don’t you are partly to blame for preventing them from protecting themselves.

      Its actually not a bad idea, particularly to combat the economic fight against our rights.

  3. avatar TommGNR says:

    Cody knows the more gun free zones there are the more mass shootings there will be. More mass shootings means a better case for civilian disarmament. That is what Cody is really after.

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      Yup, gotta break a few eggs if you want to make an omelette.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        We “civilians” are acceptable collateral damage in the creation of the new great society.

  4. avatar pwrserge says:

    Can we make commie propagandists responsible for the damage they are attempting to do to our rights?

    1. avatar PK says:

      I dearly wish.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Patience. It will come

  5. avatar Felix says:

    Can we hold politicians accountable for death, injury, and financial harm caused by bills they vote for?

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      They are already held accountable…at their next election. Now if voters only give them a slap on the wrist and RE-elect them…well then, we get exactly what we vote for, don’t we?

      1. avatar Brian says:

        @ Baldwin

        Tell that to the republicans who are living in new york or california and the like where they are grossly outnumbered even if every one of them went to the polls on election day

    2. avatar joefoam says:

      That’s the real solution to the problem of officials enacting all these laws. Let them bear the person responsibility for their actions the way us regular citizens would. Maybe they would think twice.

  6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    I don’t know if these people are pretending to be this dense or if they’re actually really stupid people. What does he mean by ‘allow’? Grant permission or fail to prevent? If they allow motor vehicles on their property and someone runs down a pedestrian in the parking lot, would the business be liable? I think this is just a dimwitted attempt at snark and certainly not a well thought out idea.

    1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      It is my experience that the anti-gun left are generally incapable or uninterested in following simple logic. They place great value in virtue signaling, and don’t value facts or honesty at all.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I’m inclined to believe they’re uninterested. If they were honest they’d just admit that they want guns to be treated differently than any other product because they just don’t like them. Problem is, aside from that pesky Constitution thing, if they got their way, other products WOULD inevitably BE treated like guns, because lawyers. Sooner or later some lawyer is going to use that legal (il)logic to get a jury to hit GM with an 8 figure penalty for ‘allowing’ alcoholics to buy their vehicles, etc. Of course, in their minds that would solve ‘climate change’ (or whatever they’re calling it this week) and help usher in their grand socialist utopia where only the government makes cars because you can’t sue the government. So maybe that’s a feature not a bug. Either way, they don’t care.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      This was my thought too. How is the business liable for failing to prevent criminal activity targeting the business?

      I could see there being some sort of liability for allowing gun owners to come in and dick around with their weapons, have an ND and hurt someone. But how is, say a liquor store, responsible for a robbery where a patron is shot? It seems to me that, regardless of policy or posted signage, in that case the store is a victim of premeditated criminal conduct the same way as said patron.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        In the case of failing to prevent a firearm from entering the premises, it would come down to whatever a jury decided was reasonable precautions to prevent that. Metal detectors and an armed guard would certainly qualify. In the case of not granting permission, all they have to do is post a no guns sign at the door, which of course, will only encourage criminals to violate the sign to prey on the unarmed. However Cody here doesn’t care about his plans harming innocent victims of crime. Criminals aren’t the enemy in his mind, it’s self relying citizens who are the threat.

    3. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

      “I don’t know if these people are pretending to be this dense or if they’re actually really stupid people.”

      Not particularly ‘stupid’, per se, they are just wasted drunk on the Kool-Aid of corrupt Leftist ideology…

      1. Geoff………….I like your updated name.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Fingers crossed. His new name should be obsolete soon.

    4. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Come on. I’d be happy if they just put a little more effort into corralling their shopping carts so they don’t go careening around the parking lots causing $1500 in damages to peoples cars. Or maybe a 1911 type grip safety to the wheels can’t roll unless somebody is actually gripping the handle. Or maybe they should just require anyone taking cart to take a 16 hour cart safety course and get a background check.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        ‘Or maybe a 1911 type grip safety to the wheels can’t roll unless somebody is actually gripping the handle.’

        Now there’s your first million right there.

      2. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

        “Or maybe a 1911 type grip safety to the wheels can’t roll unless somebody is actually gripping the handle.”

        I’ve seen just that at some big-box home improvement store, maybe ‘Home De(s)pot’?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          They make transport chairs for hospital ERs that have a handle that needs to be pulled to allow the chair to move. The mechanics are quite simple.

  7. avatar Dude says:

    “making those same businesses liable for injuries and deaths caused by designating their premises gun-free zones”

    That’s what they do in Tennessee. Why don’t they do that everywhere?

    When the law, contained in SB 1736, takes effect, business owners who demand law-abiding citizens disarm themselves will assume liability for injuries they incur while on the “posted premises.” Moreover, the business owners will be liable for injuries a concealed permit holder incurs while retreating from the business to a vehicle–during an emergency–to retrieve the gun the business owner barred.

    SB1736008020-2-(1) Any handgun carry permit holder who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct occurring on property that is posted pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall have a cause of action against the person or entity posting. In addition to damages, the person shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.

    1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      I like this for Texas and any other state that allows businesses to abrogates a citizens rights, but it is unnecessary in a state like Georgia where there is no provision in law allowing a business to forbid concealed carry.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I don’t see how a “no guns” sign is morally any different from a “whites only” sign.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Or a state that prevents kids who refuse medical procedures that carry risks from attending public or private schools. Discrimination is discrimination.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Pg2 Fake troll. It’s when you’re so degenerated that you have to steal someone else’s reputation for degeneracy it’s pretty bad.

        3. avatar pg2 says:

          So…it’s Guesty/Knute/Hank/huntmaster…still in the fence with geoff….the paid establishment many profile troll who tries to keep the dialogue here dumbed-down and leaning left, whenever possible.

        4. avatar Vlad's childhood best friend says:

          It’s not fair everybodies against him.

        5. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          Both signs would be allowed in a free country. Same as a “You must be armed to enter” sign. I know, you are a big government progressive who wants to use government to impose your wishes on other people.

        6. avatar pg2 says:

          Guesty/Knute/Hank/Huntsman, thanks for the links, I hadn’t seen them before. I guess you’ll falsely use any username here. Funny stuff.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Why just limit it to permit holders? We all know that even people who don’t have permits are safer because the bad guys don’t know which good guys are or are not carrying. Kind of like Herd Immunity. (Hope I didn’t set off the censors.) What about kids and convicted felons (even non-violent ones), that have turned their lives around and don’t have second amendment rights? They also benefit from a righteous gun carrying society. This needs to be acknowledged and reinforced.

    3. avatar Anymouse says:

      This is the way it should be. The business has taken an action (forbidding guns), so it needs to prevent the negative effects of that decision upon the public. If they prevent me from defending myself, it’s their responsibility to defend me. If they want to provide armed guards and weapons screening, like at a court house, airport, or gun show, they’ve taken the reasonable steps to protect their clients. Anything less is negligent. I still wouldn’t patronize such a place unless there was absolutely no alternative.

  8. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    “…businesses liable for injuries and deaths caused by designating their premises gun-free zones.”

    That was my first thought.

  9. avatar Patrick H says:

    Call me crazy, but this article doesn’t alarm me. The cost of insuring your premises against gun violence should be small, since the chance of gun violence in most locations is negligible.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Also, all a business would have to do is post a sign saying that ‘legally permitted carry’ is permitted. Since CCW permit holders have a violent crime rate that’s half of law enforcement officers, the odds are that any shooting would be at the hands of an illegal carrier, which they plainly didn’t ‘allow’ because of their little sign at the door.

      On the other hand, most business leaders are going to err on the side of covering their assess. Just like almost every employer has buried in their employee handbook a rule banning employees from carrying weapons on the premises. The courts won’t hold them responsible if the employee is harmed by being disarmed but they will punish the company if the employee misuses the weapon. In my state those signs don’t carry the weight of law, so they can post the sign, I can ignore them and if I end up shooting up the place their ass is covered, so in the end it wouldn’t make much difference in my state.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah, my company had to remind everyone that that little nugget was in the handbook. Apparently someone got caught showing up for work strapped.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Under the current legal circumstances I don’t have a problem with the rule as long as employees who get caught aren’t arbitrarily fired over it. A simple reminder that it’s against company policy and a long glance the other way is sufficient.

    2. avatar Keith says:

      Might not call you crazy, but at least naïve. I don’t think you want to add the insurance industry to the list of institutions standing between you and your right to self defense. Think about it. Who do you think lobbied and won in each of these cases: helmet laws, seatbelt laws, building codes, labeling laws, childproof drug caps, and on and on and on? It wasn’t ‘concerned citizens’.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Helmet laws, yeah. But do you know what the cost to insurers are for brain injured persons who didn’t bother to wear a helmet? Millions per person. Seat belts are the same, and the enforcement of seat belt laws reduced highway carnage (until speeds went through the roof) substantially. And even if insurers had not lobbied for these bills, governments did because they were saddled with the cost of injuries to uninsured persons. Bu8ilding codes? I think you are stretching it there. Yes, they were enacted to prevent injuries by avoiding buildings falling down or burning up, but the folks who wrote up the codes and have amended them are not tied to the insurance industry. Doncha know that the government is here to protect you? The insurance industry is behind gun bans on commercial premises because of the risk of injury to patrons by armed employees who miss their intended targets, but what research they are relying on for their risk assessments is unknown.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          You really love daddy government protecting you. All of those laws should be repealed. They do not belong in a free country.

        2. avatar Someone says:

          Through the roof?
          The highway system was projected and built in ’50s and ’60s for cars with steamboat like handling, bias ply tires and drum brakes. Still, no speed limit existed on motorways until 1965, when a national speed limit of 70 mph was imposed. After 60 years of car technology development, we still have about the same or even lower speed limits, save couple of exceptions. (Don’t get me started on the 55 mph limit period.)

          The speed difference between normal traffic flow and the 1% of drivers that obeys the speed limit is what often causes crashes on freeways. Good intentions don’t always bring good, or even expected, results.

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          I was talking about seat belts. The fact is that persons ejected from vehicles in high speed collisions, which happen all the time, are very likely to be killed, while those remaining restrained in the vehicle are not except in hi8gh velocity head on collisions.

          Helmetless motorcyclists who manage to survive typically suffer catastrophic brain damage. Insurance is nowhere near enough to pay for the resulting medical treatment–which means the taxpayers do. We are talking millions of dollars, compared to the nominal sum of $50 to $200 for a decent helmet. Government is not protecting the riders with these laws, it is protecting its own pocketbook.

  10. avatar Randy Jones says:

    And we should make restaurants that serve fried food responsible for that extra 20 pounds I put on…
    And Ford and the distillery should be responsible for the drunk behind the wheel of the F-150….
    And the store that allows dogs…..
    When this crap starts, where does it end?

    Something I have done on serval occasions is ask the manager, what extra steps is their facility providing beside a sticker in the door to prevent or protect patrons from shooters. I have seen two different businesses remove the Gun Free signs.

  11. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    The U.S. is the most corrupt industrialized country on earth and our allowance of frivolous or unfair law suits is indicative of the madness.

    When you think about this from the Business Owners standpoint he can be sued either way. If he allows concealed carry and some bearded , tattooed, six pack drinking ,assault rifle carrying, unbathed Jethro Bodine accidentally shoots someone on his property he can be sued and if a terrorist attacks with the next consecutive numbered serial numbered assault rifle because the businessmen man prohibited the carrying of firearms he can also be sued in the wacky nut case world of the U.S of Hey. Most businesses realize the former is far, far , more likely to happen than the latter and that is why many, many businesses prohibit the carrying of firearms as you can trust the public to carry firearms safely no farther than you can spit.

    Here in our own town a women dropped a Saturday Night Special junk handgun out of her purse and shot the lady standing next to her. The law suits went on for years. Another typical day in the lawless world of the U.S. of Hey which is the only nut case industrialized society where you have to try and dodge bullets from freeway snipers, or gangland shootouts in broad day light or nut cases shooting up malls and schools. What is insane in the U.S. has now become the every day norm. Do not leave home without your bullet proof vest and hat or it could be your last trip of your life.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘…some bearded , tattooed, six pack drinking ,assault rifle carrying, unbathed Jethro Bodine…’

      Wow. Has anyone ever told you you’re a bigot?

      1. avatar Vlad's dad says:

        The boy does know a thing or two about running around “unbathed”. All through grade school, in the first week or two of each year, his teachers would contact Children’s Protective Services about the state of the boys personal hygiene. I tried everything I could think of. I would insist he take a bath every morning before school, but he did not so much leave a ring in the tub as a thick layer of toxic sludge. So, I started dragging him out to the backyard every morning and spraying him down with the garden hose. His CPS caseworker said that when the temperature dropped below freezing, that was “child abuse”. Who knew? It sure was funny to watch him shiver and shake. Well, I started driving him to school every morning. I would throw him in the back of the truck and stop at AutoSuds and drive through the car wash. The caseworker said that was not any better than spraying him with the hose. There is just no pleasing some people!

        1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

          “I would insist he take a bath every morning before school, but he did not so much leave a ring in the tub as a thick layer of toxic sludge.”

          That’s just because ‘vlad’ was using axle grease to wank with…

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      I might also add

      It was proven several weeks ago in Texas the most gun mad State in the Union that the average person that day was not armed , as a matter of fact all the people in that store were unarmed and it proves that Businesses know this and that is why most prohibit carrying of firearms.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        In no place is the “average” citizen armed. CCW rates are in the single percentages, and most people with a CCW don’t carry daily. There were armed citizens on scene, and they did things like lead a group of children to safety rather than try to hunt down the perpetrator.

      2. avatar Vlad's dad says:

        The boy started obsessing about everyone being unarmed when he was in the 8th grade. He earned more than one beating at the hands of the third grade girls when they would catch him pulling the arms off of their Barbie dolls. The story of his life, he is just never quite clear on the concept.

      3. avatar Someone says:

        You must not be an American, Dracula. You shouldn’t believe everything you hear about the USA.
        Texas’ gun laws are about middle of the road, just a bit worse than Minnesota’s.

        So, according to you business owners know that people go around unarmed and that’s why they ban carrying of firearms. How does that make any sense?
        Why am I even asking you about making sense?

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          Ok I will explain it to you on the 6th grade level. Businesses do not fear to lose business to angry gun owners when they post a ban on carrying guns in their place of business because they know the majority of their customers do not carry guns. Now is that perfectly clear to you??

      4. avatar Ing says:

        This statement makes no sense. If aren’t generally armed when out shopping, why would businesses need to bother prohibiting customers from doing something they already don’t do?

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          see my above post for an explanation.

    3. avatar One of Vlad's comrades. says:

      But Vlad, we’ve already banned bullet proof vests and other forms of ballistic protection in Connecticut and are working on it in in several other states. Remember, we can’t allow the people to have such devices, only those who serve the State.

    4. avatar Dude says:

      “The U.S. is the most corrupt industrialized country on earth and our allowance of frivolous or unfair law suits is indicative of the madness” Feels and facts are the same to you.


      Do you actually believe that the U.S. is more corrupt than Mexico, Brazil, and Turkey?

      Sorry Vlad, but the actual reality is that “western” countries (U.S., Canada, and western Europe), Japan, and Australia are the least corrupt. Stop consuming DNC propaganda and educate yourself.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote————————-Do you actually believe that the U.S. is more corrupt than Mexico, Brazil, and Turkey?————-quote

        Reading comprehension Jethro, reading comprehension. I stated “Industrialized Country” and Mexico, Brazil and Turkey hardly qualify as such. As a matter of fact the U.S. put sanctions on Turkey for buying Russian built fighter planes. Industrialized countries manufacture their own military equipment. Geography and Political Science you flunked.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          They’re officially recognized as Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs.) Turkey is currently gearing up to produce their own fighter jets. Finland imports their fighter jets. Does that mean they aren’t industrialized? China has more active military members than the U.S., would you rather have their justice system?

          Your parents obviously failed you. You’re incapable of disagreeing or debating anyone without disparaging them. Yet, you’re probably one of these left wing hypocrites always railing against bigotry.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Reading comprehension is a constant refrain from you, vlad. Maybe if you had an education and an IQ above room temperature you could write a cohesive and legible comment.

          Don’t blame others for your own failings. If and when you graduate from high school you will find you are woefully unprepared for real life.

        3. avatar Broke_It says:

          My spare 870 barrel is from Turkey, am I an industrialized nation now?

    5. avatar Mark N. says:

      What you know about liability law, Vlad, I could write on my pinky nail–in large letters. You should stick to something you know something about….Oh wait.

  12. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    quote—————– Businesses in areas where guns are popular might choose to simply eat the cost (or insure the cost) of this potential liability in order to continue to attract customers who would like to carry guns.————-quote

    That is a laugh, Businessmen live for only one thing and that is profit and money and there is no way the average business is going to carry millions of dollars in liability insurance to pay for some dumb ass gun toting hillbilly that accidentally shoots another customer. Its just not going to happen in the real world ever. Businesses use the cheapest way out and that is to prohibit caring of firearms and that means Jethro Bodine who came in with a gun and shot some one accidentally not only goes to jail but he is the one that gets his ass sued off not the businessman who prohibited firearms carry. Its called “realpolitik”.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I would like to know what you’re smoking that allows you to find an exception to the “intervening 3rd party action” exception to liability law. Simple solution. Laugh the commies out of court.

    2. avatar Vlad's childhood best friend. says:

      Vlad, why are you dissing on Hillbillies and Jethro. When we were kids the Beverly Hillbillies was your favorite show. Jethro was your hero and we all know what you used to do with pictures of Ellie May.

      1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

        I suspect that it was pictures of Jethro that excited Vlad the most.

    3. avatar Vlad's dad says:

      The boy was fixated on Ellie May. He even made up a song about her. He would prance around the house singing “Ellie May, Ellie May, Ellie May….” and punctuate the song by slamming his head into the wall, or punching himself in the face. Once, he even managed to break his own arm. I had a lot of fun explaining that one in the emergency room.

      1. avatar Vlad's childhood best friend says:

        Yeah… There was a girl in our second grade class that wore her hair in tails just like Ellie May. He kept pulling them so one day a boy named Donald who was rather fond of Ellie, slammed his head in a bathroom stall door. It caused him to develop an odd facial tic. I know he had it until he graduated from eighth grade. Didn’t see him after that, cause they held him back a year and then he had to go to a school for problem children. I’ll bet he still has it.

      2. avatar Friend of Donna's says:

        I know of that guy Vlad. He started sending pictures of himself to Donna when he was 15. He kept it up until she died in 2015. It bothered her at first but then she just laughed and tossed them out. He just didn’t appear very threatening. The last 15 years or so they were all flaccid so it wasn’t even funny. Just kind of sad. You have to be really weird though to send those kind of pictures to an eighty-three year old woman. She had a lot class though. She just dismissed them as the result of God blessing some of us and giving some of us burdens. She felt he was pretty heavily burdened.

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Every time I think Progressives cannot surprise me at the lengths that they will go to avoid personal responsibility, they surprise me and go even further.

    In this particular case at hand, Progressives refuse to take responsibility for their personal security, so now they want to hoist that upon the private businesses where they go.

  14. avatar enuf says:

    At some point before we lose the political fight to protect the Second Amendment, which will happen eventually due to our leadership’s failure to put HUMAN VIOLENCE PREVENTION front and center, there is going to be some sort of legal challenge on private property rights. It has to happen. While private homes will not be the cause, large privately owned business venues will face a Civil Rights challenge. Barring entry to those exercising Second Amendment rights will be as much of an infringement as prohibiting people of a specific faith, or skin color.

  15. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Laws and our courts almost universally support private property owners banning visitors from possessing firearms. Such universal support does not necessarily mean that such a situation is righteous.

    In my opinion private property owners have no righteous authority to prevent life-saving measures. And our laws support this ideal, requiring private property owners to have life-saving measures for guests, such as safe construction and fire escapes. Similarly, private property owners cannot righteously ban life-saving measures for guests, such as banning guests from using a “private” door to escape a fire. This same principle also applies to firearms when guests possess firearms strictly as life-saving measures. Therefore, private property owners have no righteous authority to ban guests from possessing firearms as life-saving measures.

    Will our legislatures and courts ever see it that way? Probably not.

  16. avatar GS650G says:

    So if a criminal robs a place that allows guns and hurts someone the business is liable? But a no gun sign and policy hes off the hook?
    Got that ass backwards.

  17. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    You could do like me. I just ignore they’re stupid little signs and make sure my handgun is well concealed unless I have to use it. After all the manager can’t arrest you. He can only ask you to leave.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      IF the state allows the violation of carrying into a business that has been posted to be considered a crime, then the manager can most assuredly arrest you, it’s called a “citizens arrest”, and everyone has the power should they choose to use it, albeit there can be consequences…

      Is it really worth risking all to be obstinate, or is it just easier to conduct your business elsewhere…???

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        WI Patriot, you are not in violation of any state statutes doing what I described where I live. The small town I live in has very limited options for shopping so obstinate has nothing to do with it. It’s necessity. I go unarmed nowhere except a Federal Courthouse and I don’t expect to ever have to do that again.

        1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          WI. besides, these box stores where these signs are most common won’t even allow their employees to detain a shoplifter. I’m not worried. Citizens arrest. What a quaint idea.

        2. avatar WI Patriot says:

          And you claim to be former LE, that’s a laugh…

          Little do you know about CA, and these “box store” have specially trained employees to deal with shoplifters…And CA isn’t a “quaint idea” it’s a reality…

          “not in violation of any state statutes doing what I described where I live”

          And in your orginal comment you stated, “you could do like me. I just ignore they’re stupid little signs” thus advocating the violation of the law IF it pertains…Make your comments/statements clear…

          It’s because of people like you that the left/liberals gain ground…because you just do what you want to do, regardless of anyone elses rights…

          Play by the rules, or stay home…

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If that manager makes a citizen’s arrest for an action which does not rate an arrest (such as violating a GFZ in TX) then he can also learn how awful the law governing “false arrest” can be, especially since when he gets out of jail the person he arrested will own his house and his car, not to mention his bank account.

          And just BTW, I actually DO advocate the violation of the law pertaining to GFZs, the only reason I ever obey them is because I don’t wish to do business with anyone who would post them. However, If I need to for some reason, I enter armed and they can kiss my ass if they catch me.

        4. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” these “box store” have specially trained employees to deal with shoplifters ”

          I had the displeasure to work at WalMart a few years back– how that happened is a long and woeful tale, so I won’t go in to it. Anyway, I only lasted about ten days before I couldn’t stand the humiliating and dehumanizing circumstances of my employment.

          During my brief stay I was, on a few nights, posted at the entrance as one of their famous “greeters.” In addition to the hi-howdy-do-thanks-for-buying-our-crap routines, my other responsibility was catching shoplifters. The particular store I was in had a horrendous “shrinkage problem”, meaning stuff was going out the back and off the loading dock and not so much being pilfered through the front door.

          But I did manage to spot a few boosters. My instructions were to alert the personnel at the returns desk, which was strategically located right by the entrance. So I flagged the perps and alerted the girls at the desk, who promptly ignored me and went on doing whatever it was they were doing. And the perps just walked out the door.

          So much for the specially trained employees.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        WI Patriot,

        Some things are so heinous and obscene that they deserve no respect at all. Such is a private property policy which bans life-saving measures — including the carriage of firearms strictly for life-saving measures.

        Suppose a big-box retailer required that all people must remove lint from their navels before entering their stores. Would we have any serious obligation to honor that requirement? Or what if a big-box retailer required that all people leave asthma rescue inhalers in their cars before entering their stores. Would we have any serious obligation to honor that requirement? Or what if a big-box store prohibited women from bringing or using feminine hygiene products in their stores? Would we have any serious obligation to honor that requirement?

        Private property does not endow the property owner with any righteous authority, rights, nor privileges to deny basic human dignity to guests.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          And just because you want to enter into private property does not endow you with the special snowflake entitlement to ignore the wishes of the property owner.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          What he does not know is unenforceable. If I have to draw my gun to defend my life, we can argue about it later.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chris Mallory,

          While I support incredibly wide latitude for property owner wishes, there is a righteous limit to property owner wishes. Property owner wishes which require my death are not righteous and no one is obligated to honor such wishes.

          Tell me that I must not wear shoes on your carpet? No problem. Tell me that I must walk on the sidewalk and stay off the grass? No problem. Tell me to use the side door rather than the front door? No problem. Tell me that I must be quiet because the property owner’s spouse is sleeping? No problem. Tell me that I must do those things and doing those things will ensure my death in a disaster? I will no longer honor your wishes: I will walk with my shoes on your carpet, walk on your grass, use any door I want, and make any noise I want if that is absolutely necessary to survive a calamity.

          What is so hard to understand about that?

      3. avatar bryan1980 says:

        Citizen’s arrest, lol! I’ll be gone before the fuzz even gets there!

  18. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Jacobs: Make Businesses That Allow Guns Liable for the Cost of Injuries and Deaths”

    This is humorous…that’s exactly what W.A.V.E.(wisconsin anti-violence effort) tells businesses when they try to con them, they also tell them that they(WAVE) will NOT put them on a “safe” shopping destination list…

    Fact of the matter is that under WI CC law, IF a store does restrict CC/OC, then they ARE liable for any incident occurring on their premises…
    HOWEVER, IF the business does NOT restrict CC/OC, they are covered under the law against any possible litigation should there be an incident…

    In essence W.A.V.E. lies and blackmails(standard leftist/liberal activities) businesses into believing that they are doing the right thing…

    Personally, where businesses restrict my right(s), I do NOT patronize, and I thinks that after almost 8yrs(come Nov) of CC in WI, businesses are starting to get the point that they are losing business…

  19. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Kinda begs the question of how many legal gun carriers have injured or killed people. I doubt its very many.

  20. avatar pg2 says:

    This argument/position makes about as much sense as blaming healthy unvaccinated kids for outbreaks in vaccinated kids.

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      Give up, PeeGee. You will never attain the Superstar Troll status that Vlad has achieved. He has a ‘groupie’ following now, while you’re just one of those annoying gnats that flies around people’s heads.

      You’re just a B-rate baby troll, nothing more. I think I’ll go read more of Vlad’s stuff now. Bye.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Lol! Says the guy that ALWAYS responds to my posts.

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Lol! Says the guy who couldn’t resist responding to mine.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Real question, you get paid to troll this forum? Not that I expect you to answer honestly.

        3. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Real answer: I challenge you to find any comment from me in which I “troll” the group by introducing off-topic or inflammatory remarks. You know, like your constant anti-vaxx diatribe.

          You, however, already admitted you’re a troll:



        4. avatar pg2 says:

          Laughing my ass off!! This literally made my afternoon. I must’ve really struck a nerve with the forum troll to steal/use my profile name and make such ridiculous, amateur posts. Guesty/knute/hank/huntsman, et al, you’re giving me motivation since I know whoever is paying you wants you to shut the conversation about the public losing its rights to refuse vaccines..

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      This is a fake Pg2. The real one is locked up for diddling schoolboys.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Looks like I struck a nerve with the forum trolls. Keeps me motivated, must be on the right track if someone wants this information gone.

    3. avatar LifeSavor says:

      I agree with you, pg2.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Most gun owners that I know personally also agree. It seems this forum is somehow heavily populated with hardcore statists when it comes to anything outside of the 2nd Amendment.

  21. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    So, sir, sanctuary cities should be held responsible for crimes committed by illegals? And the Democratic Congress for the illegals here because they refuse to acknowledge the problem and provide more money for border control? HUH?

  22. avatar mnrobitaille says:

    “We wonder what Cody Jacobs’ reaction would be to making those same businesses liable for injuries and deaths caused by designating their premises gun-free zones.”

    Technically businesses are liable, just look at TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights

    The problem is that businesses (such as Costco, AMC Theaters, Simon Malls, etc) don’t think/belief it applies to them.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      The problem is that businesses (such as Costco, AMC Theaters, Simon Malls, etc) don’t think/belief it applies to them.

      Correction: the problem is that the U.S. Justice Department does not think it applies to them. For that matter, federal courts do not think it applies to them, either.

  23. avatar Mark N. says:

    I suspect that this article was written by a law student who should be required to repeat first year torts. Just because a person slips and falls in a store does NOT mean the business is necessarily liable. This is a negligence question, not strict liability. The store must have NOTICE of the dangerous condition and an opportunity to cure before liability may attach. This is fundamental to the tort system, and if this idiot doesn’t know that, well, I don’t know what to think about him or his professors. He should have instead done some actual research on the liability of a business premises for criminal misconduct by third persons before opening his trap. As a general proposition, business owners are NOT liable for criminal acts on their property. The only exception is if there are repeated criminal incidents, for example nightly fights and muggings in the dark parking lot next door to the bar, that MAY be a basis for ascribing liability. Failing to provide “adequate security” is hardly ever a sufficient basis because t he cost of security greatly exceeds the harms to be prevented. Despite what the insurance company bean counters may think, a business owner will not be liable if a concealed carrier engages an armed robber. The only thing they really have to worry about is the cost of defending such cases, should any be filed. However, a business can be held liable under principles or respondeat superior (i.e. liability of the master for acts of the servant) if its employee negligently shoots and/or kills someone.

  24. avatar Alan says:

    How would you treat businesses that block the carriage of arms in their premises in cases where innocent patrons, having been disarmed, suffer injury? Answers please.

  25. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    I’m fine with this.

    Let’s make all companies that allow guns liable for deaths caused by the criminal actions of those lawfully carrying and gun free zones liable for the deaths of those that are shot while disarmed . Since lawful CCW holders and lawful gun owners almost NEVER commit crimes , the companies will have an incentive to allow carry.

  26. avatar MtnDewey says:

    its everyone elses fault

  27. avatar Mike H in WA says:

    I just wanna make sure I understand this correctly… so I’m in a Kwik-E-Mart getting a Coke, and some yahoo comes in and robs the place with a firearm. If in the process of robbing the place, I get shot… I now have the legal right to sue the store owner for not posting a gun-free zone sign?

    Now, let’s say I’m the robber, and a patron pulls out a gun and shoots me. Do I have the right to sue the store owner because I suffered a firearm related injury because he didn’t have the gun-free zone sign?

  28. avatar bryan1980 says:

    So let me understand this: If you post a little “no guns allowed” sign on the front of your store, you’re not liable for injuries/deaths from gunfire? Because those little signs always work, right? I guess the only way to be sure your business is truly “gun-free” would be to have a TSA-style checkpoint at the entrance. Go ahead and try that, and see how many repeat customers you get.

  29. avatar Cody Jerkobs says:

    Nothing stops bad guys like signs. I once put up a sign telling people to quit making fun of me.

  30. avatar Frank says:

    We need to hold fork and spoon manufacturers responsible for the obesity crisis in America.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email