4 votes

Any attorneys out there? If a business has a "weapons banned" sign posted is it liable for injuries?

If this is true and you are shot in that place of business it sounds like a huge lawsuit to me.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Anytime someone is injured or harmed in anyway ...

on private property ... particularly a business establishment that is open to the public ...

there exists potential liability.

I guess what you are asking is ... Can the establishment be apportioned greater liability because they do not allow guns in the store?

The answer is yes, because they allowed someone with a gun into the store.

They broke their own policy and there is no question that argument is used all the time to apportion a greater liability upon the store owner.

That is why you rarely see "no gun" signs in private establishments. (with the exception of maybe where they serve alcohol or where the state prohibits guns)

The only time you will see a "no guns allowed" sign is where the state explicitly prohibits guns and therefore affords immunity from liability.

The only other time you will see those signs is when an idiot owns the store, which means they typically go out of business fairly rapidly.

For some reason movie theaters are also heavily regulated by the state so if you see a "no gun" sign at the movie theater, bet your bottom dollar that the state prohibits it and therefore affords a certain level of immunity from liability to the owners.


Thanks Rhino


You're welcome ...

God Bless.

Novel Idea, but won't fly, and here's why:

If they have a "Weapons Banned" sign on the front door, and you decide to shop there anyway, who's fault is it?

You have a choice to shop anywhere you wish, but you chose to shop in a store that had a sign clearly posted in plain view that told you up front, that you were not allowed to protect yourself by the use of a firearm in their store, but you chose to shop there anyway.

Case Closed.

It's the store's responsibility to provide for security

Here, if a store posts 'no guns' and then takes no positive actions to disarm their customers, the store is liable for maintaining the security of the premises. Any act of gun violence that takes place on their premises is their responsibility.

If, on the other hand, the store makes it clear that other customers may be armed, then the store has made no pretense of protecting their customers and is not liable.

That's the law as of this year. Not been tested in court, to my knowledge.

I live in WI

The company I work for proudly posts a sign at the front door that personal firearms are welcome. The reason: there is no expectation on the part of customers that their fellow customers have been disarmed by the store. If they don't like it, don't come in.

That's how you deal with liability where I come from.

thank you to my fellow cheesehead.

I was in my chiropractor's office and another patient pointed
out the "weapons banned" sign; I thought I'd ask the DP crowd
about the liabilty.

Also in Wisconsin

when the open carry law went into effect these stickers on doors popped up automatically:

"No guns allowed on premises"

and other wordings.

Always wondered if it was a warning or a promise?

I mean, is it a warning to a gun-owner that they should put their gun in their car?

Or a promise to all patrons that everyone has been disarmed before being allowed to enter?

From my experience I would say the former as I have not had any more reason to think that my fellow bar patrons et al had been disarmed than I had before the passage of the law.

9-11 was a panda job.