On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Greg Jacobs wrote:
On another firearms discussion list, the following "legal theories"
were propounded. I have heard similar arguments before. Is there any
substance to the idea that one who bans guns on one's own property
gives rise to liability/responsibility for the welfare of third
parties entering one's property who are disarmed due to your ban? I
can't seem to dredge up a viable legal theory that fits that scenario.
If "viable legal theory" means "someone has won a case with it," I
don't believe any such case has yet been tried. If it means "someone
could potentially win a case with it," I think we're on much stronger
ground. I suspect you might even have seen this exact case in response
to the "Mucko" incident if it had been the company and not the state of
Massachusetts that had disarmed the licensed NH employee.
--
Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty
Take a Sanity Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch
http://libertyhavenranch.com
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
