Who is Responsible for Security?

[blackjack50]

So this is something that interests me. My understanding of the law is that ultimately it is on you as an individual to make yourself and your belongings secure. If you feel this is an incorrect assumption then let me know.

So going on that assumption...if a business open to the public limits security to the individual by disallowing defensive weapons (pepper spray and so on)...do they now have responsibility to the security of the people on the premises? It is the duty of the business to secure their property. But it is to the individual to provide their own security. So if the business limits the security of the individual in an attempt to protect their property...do they have a responsibility for the security of the individuals on their property at that point?

I find this to be unusual because they have a responsibility to provide a safe building for fire or other potential hazards, but for security against a person they do not. So what do you think?

 

[KevinKohler]

Probably won't be the answer you want, but...


You can't blame the business or the owner for adhering to local and state laws, and for being beholden to the myriad rules and regs put forth on them by their INSURANCE. Place don't allow guns onto the premises NOT because the own doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself, but because they'd never be able to be insured otherwise, and without that insurance, they are not legally allowed to open their doors to the public.

 

[fmw]

Probably won't be the answer you want, but...


You can't blame the business or the owner for adhering to local and state laws, and for being beholden to the myriad rules and regs put forth on them by their INSURANCE. Place don't allow guns onto the premises NOT because the own doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself, but because they'd never be able to be insured otherwise, and without that insurance, they are not legally allowed to open their doors to the public.

A business is not required by laws to have insurance. It may be required in a lease and it is certainly required by sound management practice.

 

[KevinKohler]

A business is not required by laws to have insurance. It may be required in a lease and it is certainly required by sound management practice.

If the business has a building that is open to the public, it is required by law to have insurance, in the same way you are required to have auto insurance to drive.

 

[blackjack50]

Probably won't be the answer you want, but...


You can't blame the business or the owner for adhering to local and state laws, and for being beholden to the myriad rules and regs put forth on them by their INSURANCE. Place don't allow guns onto the premises NOT because the own doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself, but because they'd never be able to be insured otherwise, and without that insurance, they are not legally allowed to open their doors to the public.

Well a few things though. This isn't exclusively about guns. There are other ways to defend oneself. There are other ways to secure yourself as well. But that is the thing. If it is legal to have in public by the state, does the insurance have the right to block insurance based on something legal in the public?

Yes. The owner has to abide by the law and to insurance policies. But can an insurance policy say that to insure the business the business must block some aspects that are not against the law in the public?

 

[fmw]

If the business has a building that is open to the public, it is required by law to have insurance, in the same way you are required to have auto insurance to drive.

Perhaps in your state. Not in ours.

 

[KevinKohler]

Well a few things though. This isn't exclusively about guns. There are other ways to defend oneself. There are other ways to secure yourself as well. But that is the thing. If it is legal to have in public by the state, does the insurance have the right to block insurance based on something legal in the public?

Yes. The owner has to abide by the law and to insurance policies. But can an insurance policy say that to insure the business the business must block some aspects that are not against the law in the public?

Yes, they can. There are LOTS of things that are perfectly legal to own, but insurance won't allow onto the premises of most businesses. A pitt bull, for instance. A car or bike, or anything with gasoline in it.

The insurance company has worked out that allowing those things into a business increases risk, and therefor, reduces potential profitability. Allowing everyone who legally can, to open carry at a walmart, or KFC, is an insurance nightmare, because the law suit, when someone DOES inevitably get shot by accident, will be bankruptingly huge. They view the risk posed by declaring place a gun free zone much less, by comparison.

How have they come to this concept? Probably by using history. Even in the wild wild west, business owners tended to disarm their patrons before allowing them in.

 

[KevinKohler]

Perhaps in your state. Not in ours.

What state is your state? I'd be curious to see that for myself. I have a hard time thinking of a restaurant that isn't REQUIRED BY LAW to have insurance...

 

[fmw]

What state is your state? I'd be curious to see that for myself. I have a hard time thinking of a restaurant that isn't REQUIRED BY LAW to have insurance...

Indiana. Who said anything about a restaurant?

 

[KevinKohler]

Indiana. Who said anything about a restaurant?

It's what I did for most of my life, so it's what I think of first.

 

[KevinKohler]

Indiana does NOT require any form of liability insurance for public businesses. Strange. It was so in FL, and in CT, I guess I just ASSumed it was so all over.

 

[Caine]

Probably won't be the answer you want, but...


You can't blame the business or the owner for adhering to local and state laws, and for being beholden to the myriad rules and regs put forth on them by their INSURANCE. Place don't allow guns onto the premises NOT because the own doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself, but because they'd never be able to be insured otherwise, and without that insurance, they are not legally allowed to open their doors to the public.

Why do some places allow concealed and even open carry then? Better insurance provider?

 

[jimbo]

If the business has a building that is open to the public, it is required by law to have insurance, in the same way you are required to have auto insurance to drive.

In Virginia, I don't believe either of those is correct.

 

[blackjack50]

Why do some places allow concealed and even open carry then? Better insurance provider?

That was my curiosity. In Florida signs hold no weight of law. So have fun putting them up.

 

[Caine]

That was my curiosity. In Florida signs hold no weight of law. So have fun putting them up.

Now, THAT, I have a problem with.

I am very much pro-property rights. If a business opts to prevent customers from carrying open, or even concealed, that should be their right. Just like I think smoking bans in places that would otherwise allow smoking if they had the choice are also wrong. I am for property rights, even if its a business open to the public.

 

[Goshin]

So this is something that interests me. My understanding of the law is that ultimately it is on you as an individual to make yourself and your belongings secure. If you feel this is an incorrect assumption then let me know.

So going on that assumption...if a business open to the public limits security to the individual by disallowing defensive weapons (pepper spray and so on)...do they now have responsibility to the security of the people on the premises? It is the duty of the business to secure their property. But it is to the individual to provide their own security. So if the business limits the security of the individual in an attempt to protect their property...do they have a responsibility for the security of the individuals on their property at that point?

I find this to be unusual because they have a responsibility to provide a safe building for fire or other potential hazards, but for security against a person they do not. So what do you think?

They should, but at present the legal precedent has not been so established.

 

[KevinKohler]

Why do some places allow concealed and even open carry then? Better insurance provider?

They might be willing to pay higher rates to allow it.

 

[Thoreau72]

Life is precarious, not secure.

 

[MisterLogical]

So this is something that interests me. My understanding of the law is that ultimately it is on you as an individual to make yourself and your belongings secure. If you feel this is an incorrect assumption then let me know.

So going on that assumption...if a business open to the public limits security to the individual by disallowing defensive weapons (pepper spray and so on)...do they now have responsibility to the security of the people on the premises? It is the duty of the business to secure their property. But it is to the individual to provide their own security. So if the business limits the security of the individual in an attempt to protect their property...do they have a responsibility for the security of the individuals on their property at that point?

I find this to be unusual because they have a responsibility to provide a safe building for fire or other potential hazards, but for security against a person they do not. So what do you think?

No, it is illegal to steal even if you believe someone has not secured their property correctly. This is not a justification for being a thief. However if someone is leaving stuff out in the open and they get robbed, they probably should have thought better. If people are sent to a location to do stuff everyday like a job or school than they should have reasonable protection. I do not think weapons are the only means of security either.