Westgate liable for victims in their gun-free zone?

[Suck My Glock]

Find at this link Westgate's CODE OF CONDUCT, wherein they state in the 2nd sentence of the document, "Please keep all firearms and weapons locked within your vehicle."

https://westgateaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Westgate_Code_Of_Conduct_v2.pdf?fbclid=IwAR188Tg2A5Qo4XbLQduV7M7GBrbNOX1qV_LG27zndNo_tZtCglgDzBMsQVI


Hmmmmmmmm.


Didn't we pass a law making such things actionable in civil court?

 

[curtmini14]

screw them concealed carry is how i roll all they can do is ask you to leave!i will not leave it in the car.

 

[storage_man]

Find at this link Westgate's CODE OF CONDUCT, wherein they state in the 2nd sentence of the document, "Please keep all firearms and weapons locked within your vehicle."

https://westgateaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Westgate_Code_Of_Conduct_v2.pdf?fbclid=IwAR188Tg2A5Qo4XbLQduV7M7GBrbNOX1qV_LG27zndNo_tZtCglgDzBMsQVI


Hmmmmmmmm.


Didn't we pass a law making such things actionable in civil court?

Gee its only 19 steps to legally shop there (OUCH). All thanks to our litigates society we now live in.

 

[Pscipio03]

Find at this link Westgate's CODE OF CONDUCT, wherein they state in the 2nd sentence of the document, "Please keep all firearms and weapons locked within your vehicle."

https://westgateaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Westgate_Code_Of_Conduct_v2.pdf?fbclid=IwAR188Tg2A5Qo4XbLQduV7M7GBrbNOX1qV_LG27zndNo_tZtCglgDzBMsQVI


Hmmmmmmmm.


Didn't we pass a law making such things actionable in civil court?

Can't be true. Someone brought a gun in and started shooting. If the rules say that and there are signs posted, we all know that will keep someone hellbent on murder to go back to their car and lock up their gun. Also soon after they'll go to church, help old ladies across the street and then start voting Republican.

 

[Kingjoey]

I would think that if they have those policies in place yet offer no armed security they should be liable. Westgate is a shitty place made to pander to CA'ers and sports idiots, I'm sure their response to this will be more policies and metal detectors. After going to a Cardinals game and dealing with that trainwreck, will be a cold day in hell before I go to Westgate or another Cardinals game

 

[AZ_Five56]

The precedent set by the courts is that shooting victims' families are allowed to sue gun manufacturers. By the same logic, you can sue anyone for anything.

 

[mtptwo]

The precedent set by the courts is that shooting victims' families are allowed to sue gun manufacturers. By the same logic, you can sue anyone for anything.

Where was that decision? There was the dumb one out of NV that allowed a case to proceed because ARs = machine guns, but it wasn't any kind of ruling.

 

[AZ_Five56]

The precedent set by the courts is that shooting victims' families are allowed to sue gun manufacturers. By the same logic, you can sue anyone for anything.

Where was that decision? There was the dumb one out of NV that allowed a case to proceed because ARs = machine guns, but it wasn't any kind of ruling.

I've seen several cases of this in the past year. The most notable was the supreme court allowing Sandy Hook families to sue Remington.

 

[xerts1191]

 

[admin]

I think that in order to have standing to sue for something like that, you have to; 1) Have someone who regularly carries a CCW with them and could demonstrate that to be the case, 2) That person did not carry a gun due to a policy like this that restricts it, 3) That person or someone with them (wife, child, friend) gets shot or injured in a situation like this.

If any of those three are not present, I'm not sure you could successfully sue or even have standing to challenge such a restriction. However, if the exact right situation did occur to set someone up like that - and they had a clean background - I think it would be fairly easy to win a big settlement and might turn the tide where businesses would stop restricting due to liability in the other direction.

 

[TacMedic]

Admin.... :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Miker12]

I think that in order to have standing to sue for something like that, you have to; 1) Have someone who regularly carries a CCW with them and could demonstrate that to be the case, 2) That person did not carry a gun due to a policy like this that restricts it, 3) That person or someone with them (wife, child, friend) gets shot or injured in a situation like this.

If any of those three are not present, I'm not sure you could successfully sue or even have standing to challenge such a restriction. However, if the exact right situation did occur to set someone up like that - and they had a clean background - I think it would be fairly easy to win a big settlement and might turn the tide where businesses would stop restricting due to liability in the other direction.

Based on what you just posted, she should have won a great lawsuit against Luby's. But apparently she didn't

Luby's shooting (1991)
The Texas State Rifle Association and others preferred that the state allow its citizens to carry concealed weapons. Democratic governor Ann Richards vetoed such bills, but in 1995 her Republican successor, George W. Bush, signed one into force. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the massacre; both of her parents were killed by Hennard. She later testified that she would have liked to have had her gun, but said, "It was a hundred feet away in my car." (She had feared that if she was caught carrying it she might lose her chiropractor's license.) Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_shooting

Dr. Suzanna Hupp Testimony Before Congress on the 2nd Amendment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE

According to Hupp, "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

 

[admin]

That's a good point, but did she ever even try to sue Luby's and/or the state?

And if that EXACT situation were to happen now - I think it would play out (legally speaking) very differently. A lot has changed in the landscape since that happened almost 30 years ago.

 

[Ballistic Therapy]

So you should be able to sue someone because you got hurt somewhere that ,
the risk of going was clearly posted , you weren't forced to go there , yet you went there anyway ?

Just asking an arbitrary question.

 

[Miker12]

So you should be able to sue someone because you got hurt somewhere that ,
the risk of going was clearly posted , you weren't forced to go there , yet you went there anyway ?

Just asking an arbitrary question.

The main point is that the store/business is saying, "no guns" and thus taking on the safety of the customers. In a BIG city there would be other choices to go to. However in some small AZ towns there is one or two cafes. Same with grocery stores. Same with any government building.