This question has come up from time to time. It seems clear that the bulk of precedents does not support a premises proprietor (which would be the role of an employer) being liable for the criminal wrongdoing of persons on the premises, as long as there was not clear evidence of
instigation or incitement. The presumption is in favor of the proprietor, although one never knows what a jury might do.
What a jury might do, and what the law is on appeal, could be very different, true. But jury decisions that fly in the face of established law don't usually survive unless an appellate court finds some reason to change the law and in this case I cannot imagine that happening.
I have searched for cases in which the victim of a crime has sued the proprietor for preventing him from defending himself, or being defended by another who was disarmed by the proprietor, but not found any, at least none that made it to the appeals level.
Because there is little argument on the subject? One wonders....
I have suggested that we be on the lookout for such a case and push it if it comes up. To my mind, the greater liability falls on the proprietor who prevents someone from defending himself or others. If we got one such case, there could be a sea change in legal advice on the issue.
I disagree totally. Notwithstanding my personal concern for the RKBA, I have always maintained that the person in control of premises, whether home ownership or commercial ownership or as a lessee, it matters not, has the complete and exclusive right to determine whether or not to permit firearms on the subject premises. That being the case, if anyone ever sued an employer as Mr. Roland noted, it is likely that either the juries have routinely held against the employee or that the trial courts ruled against the employees and the cases simply do not get appealed because the law is so clear.
Might I add that the same applies to any Federal "premises" as well, except, MAYBE, national parks and wildlife areas. MAYBE.
If we didn't have to confront the sovereign immunity defense, one could make a case for any victim of a crime suing the government for preventing bystanders from being armed, and thus defending him, in a public place such as a street. That would have likely been a winning
case in the Early Republic.
Since the sovereign immunity doctrine is kind of ancient I have to wonder if even "way back then" suing the government would have been successful. Speculative, at best, of course, but I'd weigh in with a no vote unless some precedent or some kind of parallel exists in the deep recesses of the early Federal court reports.
***GRJ***
_______________________________________________ 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.
