Additional verbiage for the back of "no guns = no money" cards

[deerhuntre]

Attorney members, please chime in and let us know if this is a possible avenue of liability for "Sign Posters" and maybe a source of a new revenue stream for attorneys and injured parties:

 

In addition to the existing verbiage on the "No Guns = No Money" cards, I suggest the following--"TAKE NOTICE you have exposed yourself, your employees and your company to substantial liability and litigation costs, should someone in your establishment suffer injury or death that your security was unable to prevent."

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

... and we pass out these cards to establishments with no gun signs before we walk off in protest?

[borgranta]

Attorney members, please chime in and let us know if this is a possible avenue of liability for "Sign Posters" and maybe a source of a new revenue stream for attorneys and injured parties:

 

In addition to the existing verbiage on the "No Guns = No Money" cards, I suggest the following--"TAKE NOTICE you have exposed yourself, your employees and your company to substantial liability and litigation costs, should someone in your establishment that is legally allowed to carry be denied that right within your establishment resulting in injury or death that your security could not prevent."

I modified the wording to point out that a lawful carrier being forced to disarm resulting in injury or death is a liability nightmare that places like Walmart are smart enough to avoid.

[ca22151]

How about this:

TAKE NOTICE: Your decision to ban concealed carry within your establishment may expose yourself, your employees and your company to potentially substantial civil liability in the event that a patron, otherwise legally allowed to carry, is harmed or killed by a third party while your patron is disarmed and within your establishment.

[deerhuntre]

I really like the suggestions and will be modifying my template for printing my new cards.

[NakPPI]

The rules of ethics frown on threatening law suits frivolously... Hb 148 created liability for employers that banned carry in the work place, but threatening liability for posting no gun signs? Not so much. Vote with your wallet, it will be more effective.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[deerhuntre]

NakPPI--Your post displayed after I posted this...I get what you are saying!!

 

Now that I've pasted the verbiage into my cards and read them, I can't help wondering if the softer original message is better marketing to convince a business owner to take down their sign. After all, that is the goal we are tyring for by giving out these cards. Here's the original verbiage and I wonder if the idea I had may actually detract from the message we are tyring to convey?

 

Your “no gun” sign is bad for business. It does nothing to

make you safer. It simply tells criminals you’re an easy target and

drives away good customers with a concealed carry license.

 

Unlike most people, license holders have passed a criminal

background check. Statistics show we are far more law-abiding

than the general public. Our numbers are growing every day. We

are ideal customers and will patronize your business if you let us.

Remove your sign and I, my family, and many other

legal gun owners will gladly return.

[ca22151]

The rules of ethics frown on threatening law suits frivolously... Hb 148 created liability for employers that banned carry in the work place, but threatening liability for posting no gun signs? Not so much. Vote with your wallet, it will be more effective.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I don't know if I see it as frivolous - under the right circumstances, where you were almost compelled to enter an establishment but couldn't enter armed, mgt aware of numerous incidents, etc., it's arguable.

[Indigo]

The rules of ethics frown on threatening law suits frivolously... Hb 148 created liability for employers that banned carry in the work place, but threatening liability for posting no gun signs? Not so much. Vote with your wallet, it will be more effective.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I don't know if I see it as frivolous - under the right circumstances, where you were almost compelled to enter an establishment but couldn't enter armed, mgt aware of numerous incidents, etc., it's arguable.

 

The original wording is from Buckeye Firearms version, and is similar to the cards used in several other states. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[papa]

The best way to get the message across is to simply attach a receipt from a business competitor to the no guns = no money cards. That will show the business owner just how much money he or she is missing out on.

[ca22151]

The rules of ethics frown on threatening law suits frivolously... Hb 148 created liability for employers that banned carry in the work place, but threatening liability for posting no gun signs? Not so much. Vote with your wallet, it will be more effective.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I don't know if I see it as frivolous - under the right circumstances, where you were almost compelled to enter an establishment but couldn't enter armed, mgt aware of numerous incidents, etc., it's arguable.

 

The original wording is from Buckeye Firearms version, and is similar to the cards used in several other states. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

After seeing Indigo's post, I googled the back of the Buckeye Firearms card - Indigo is on the button, it hits the right balance.

[Glock23]

The best way to get the message across is to simply attach a receipt from a business competitor to the no guns = no money cards. That will show the business owner just how much money he or she is missing out on.

^^^^^

This!

[Smallbore]

How about coming from a different direction? Civil rights . If the law allowed a store to hang a "no blacks allowed" sign, would they? I have no idea how to word such sentiment on a card.

I doubt threatening a law suit would gain positive results. Is there legal precedence?

[borgranta]

The rules of ethics frown on threatening law suits frivolously... Hb 148 created liability for employers that banned carry in the work place, but threatening liability for posting no gun signs? Not so much. Vote with your wallet, it will be more effective.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Lawsuits for injury resulting from being disarmed due to business policy will probably be similar in legal procedure to a legitimate slip and fall case, however a death resulting from the same policy would likely be treated as a wrongful death claim which could possibly include any future lost income. Wrongful death is not a frivolous law suit. Businesses should be warned in advance of the potential for lawsuits to enable them to adjust their policy to allow some form of carry such as and I quote "please carry concealed while within this establishment" or "loaded long guns allowed when in non transparent carrying case or other non transparent container" or "open carry of handguns only" or "conceal carry preferred". I thought that it was worth mentioning that any place of business in ILLINOIS should and probably would have an ability to direct law abiding carriers to either conceal carry or open carry or both while on the property with clearly visible signage

[borgranta]

How about coming from a different direction? Civil rights . If the law allowed a store to hang a "no blacks allowed" sign, would they? I have no idea how to word such sentiment on a card.

I doubt threatening a law suit would gain positive results. Is there legal precedence?

There is legal precedence for slip and fall lawsuits that result in injury so it would not be too hard to sue a business for a personal injury resulting from a flawed policy and there are certain things called wrongful death lawsuits that could cause them to bleed money.

[RockerXX]

Tip of the Day: Don't blame establishments like Walmart that support the US Constitution and my rights for the lose of my business, when it's your own unconstitutional policies that are the real cause...

[borgranta]

I just realized that giving a business that has no carry signs an additional card to a lawyer that handles wrongful death claims that they can consult so the business owner(s) can get an idea of how much they could potentially lose over a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the no carry policy.

[borgranta]

Tip of the Day: Don't blame establishments like Walmart that support the US Constitution and my rights for the lose of my business, when it's your own unconstitutional policies that are the real cause...

I agree but we should work to educate businesses that banning carry causes them to not only lose business but also puts at great risk of being sued for damages resulting from the policy. They should be told that posting a no weapons sign is like telling criminals that there is no armed resistance here aka easy target.

[borgranta]

NakPPI--Your post displayed after I posted this...I get what you are saying!!

 

Now that I've pasted the verbiage into my cards and read them, I can't help wondering if the softer original message is better marketing to convince a business owner to take down their sign. After all, that is the goal we are tyring for by giving out these cards. Here's the original verbiage and I wonder if the idea I had may actually detract from the message we are tyring to convey?

 

Your “no gun” sign is bad for business. It does nothing to

make you safer. It simply tells criminals you’re an easy target and

drives away good customers with a concealed carry license.

 

Unlike most people, license holders have passed a criminal

background check. Statistics show we are far more law-abiding

than the general public. Our numbers are growing every day. We

are ideal customers and will patronize your business if you let us.

Remove your sign and I, my family, and many other

legal gun owners will gladly return.

This part of the original verbiage is my favorite part of the above verbiage: "Your “no gun” sign is bad for business. It does nothing to

make you safer. It simply tells criminals you’re an easy target"