Interesting Legal Opinion regarding Firearms

gunvictimsaction.org... m/

A prestigious Law firm (Mayer Brown, named “Firm of the Year” in the Appellate Law category by U.S. News & World Report for the second consecutive year)

Answered a request from Gun Victims Action for an opinion regarding Commercial Liabilities for gun violence on commercial properties:

www.multivu.com...

In part the firm replied:

If you are shot accidentally or otherwise in a gun-related incident whether in an office, retail, mall or residential building, you can sue the property owner if “No Guns Allowed” signs were not posted.

Additionally, if a Building Owner does not put up a sign, you are at increased risk of being a victim of a gun incident at your place of business, where you shop or where you live.

The Mayer Brown memo centers on Illinois in response to the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, implemented in 2014, but the principles are the same in every state including states with laws immunizing property owners.

Of course, the NRA will reflexively argue that people are less safe in a building that bans guns because they cannot “defend” themselves and others. But the Mayer legal research memo makes clear there is a body of evidence demonstrating that armed citizens do not protect themselves and others the way they think and, in fact, make the environment far less safe than if no guns were present. This is why all major corporations/companies—including the NRA—ban guns from their headquarter buildings.

They go on to note:

f you are shot accidentally or otherwise in a gun-related incident whether in an office, retail, mall or residential building, you can sue the property owner if “No Guns Allowed” signs were not posted.

Additionally, if a Building Owner does not put up a sign, you are at increased risk of being a victim of a gun incident at your place of business, where you shop or where you live.

edit on 24-4-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

a reply to: FyreByrd

Building owners should also post "no raping" signs for the same reason. After all, this is about lawyers, not safety.

Americas lax gun laws and the arguments people come up with for why there is some sort of logic to them are just stupid, its as simple as that. Wish there was a more intelligent way to put it, but there just isn't. The fact there's over 10,000 gun related murders a year in the US speaks for itself.

Yeah, shooting off a few rounds is fun and having a locked & ready semi-automatic hand gun under your bed would give the perception of being safer, but it doesn't make you safer in reality. Not when everyone else also has easy access to guns.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Americas lax gun laws and the arguments people come up with for why there is some sort of logic to them are just stupid, its as simple as that. Wish there was a more intelligent way to put it, but there just isn't. The fact there's over 10,000 gun related murders a year in the US speaks for itself.

Yeah, shooting off a few rounds is fun and having a locked & ready semi-automatic hand gun under your bed would give the perception of being safer, but it doesn't make you safer in reality. Not when everyone else also has easy access to guns.

So you're safer if you don't have a gun? Even though you just said that its so easy for everyone to get one?

Logic is hard.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Americas lax gun laws and the arguments people come up with for why there is some sort of logic to them are just stupid, its as simple as that. Wish there was a more intelligent way to put it, but there just isn't. The fact there's over 10,000 gun related murders a year in the US speaks for itself.

Yeah, shooting off a few rounds is fun and having a locked & ready semi-automatic hand gun under your bed would give the perception of being safer, but it doesn't make you safer in reality. Not when everyone else also has easy access to guns.

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Americas lax gun laws and the arguments people come up with for why there is some sort of logic to them are just stupid, its as simple as that. Wish there was a more intelligent way to put it, but there just isn't. The fact there's over 10,000 gun related murders a year in the US speaks for itself.

Yeah, shooting off a few rounds is fun and having a locked & ready semi-automatic hand gun under your bed would give the perception of being safer, but it doesn't make you safer in reality. Not when everyone else also has easy access to guns.

So you're safer if you don't have a gun? Even though you just said that its so easy for everyone to get one?

Logic is hard.

No, don't play word games. I said it'd be safer if guns were harder to obtain.

If I lived in the US with the current gun laws, then bloody oath I'd make sure I had my own weapons.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Americas lax gun laws and the arguments people come up with for why there is some sort of logic to them are just stupid, its as simple as that. Wish there was a more intelligent way to put it, but there just isn't. The fact there's over 10,000 gun related murders a year in the US speaks for itself.

Yeah, shooting off a few rounds is fun and having a locked & ready semi-automatic hand gun under your bed would give the perception of being safer, but it doesn't make you safer in reality. Not when everyone else also has easy access to guns.

So you're safer if you don't have a gun? Even though you just said that its so easy for everyone to get one?

Logic is hard.

No, don't play word games. I said it'd be safer if guns were harder to obtain.

If I lived in the US with the current gun laws, then bloody oath I'd make sure I had my own weapons.

If I didn't live in the US, I wouldn't comment on US gun laws... but that's just me.

The article says you can sue... but winning is a whole different story.

You can sue for just about anything but getting a judge to side with your idiotic reasoning is the hard part.


This part sounds like total BS:
Additionally, if a Building Owner does not put up a sign, you are at increased risk of being a victim of a gun incident at your place of business, where you shop or where you live.

I'd love to see the data used by the law firm to claim that you're more likely to be shot in a place that doesn't have a "no guns allowed" policy. Here's a quick run-down of some high-profile mass shootings that have occurred in places where guns weren't allowed:

-Sandy Hook (27 killed)
-Ft. Hood (13 killed)
-Aurora, CO movie theater shooting (12 killed)
-Virginia Tech (32 killed)
-Columbine (13 killed)

Those are just the high-profile mass killings. There are many many more examples that weren't as highly publicized.

The law firm has an obvious agenda.

a reply to: Answer

Well that's the best part about me, is I'm me and not you, brother!

Besides, can you honestly tell me you've never given your opinion on another countries politics. Maybe Russia, isis or even Israel, for example?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

No, don't play word games. I said it'd be safer if guns were harder to obtain.

They're very easy to obtain illegally. Punishing people who purchase them legally isn't going to help anything. Criminals would still easily obtain them, just like they do now, legal or not.

You would probably change your tune if you lived in an area where people armed with guns break into houses. Guns level the playing field. Soiled panties don't.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Answer

Well that's the best part about me, is I'm me and not you, brother!

Besides, can you honestly tell me you've never given your opinion on another countries politics. Maybe Russia, isis or even Israel, for example?

ISIS isn't a country...

To answer your question frankly: no, I don't think I have. Mainly because I understand that there is a difference in culture between all nations and it isn't my place to share my ignorant opinion.

Commenting on the actions of a nation's government as it affects the global stage is also much different than criticizing the constitutional laws of of a country in which you don't live.

Thats priceless, the nra offices are gun free.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Thats priceless, the nra offices are gun free.

No, they aren't.

It's been repeated by a bunch of online articles and blogs but people have called the NRA headquarters and confirmed that A) employees with permits can carry and B) visitors with permits can carry.

I've had to use this line several times lately but: the anti-gun side pushes nothing but lies. Every single "fact" that they present does not hold up under scrutiny.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Answer

Well that's the best part about me, is I'm me and not you, brother!

Besides, can you honestly tell me you've never given your opinion on another countries politics. Maybe Russia, isis or even Israel, for example?

ISIS isn't a country...

Gun rights aren't a country neither.

But if your trying to tell me I could go though all 2,200 posts of yours and not find at least a few that has an opinion on another countries politics, then I'm going to have to call BS.

But anyway.......... Everything I have to say on the subject has already been said, so good day sir.

a reply to: greencmp

Damn, in that case their whole front facade is gonna be a giant "Don't do this, Don't do that". Beats the hell out of personal responsibility eh?

The guns aren't the problem. Man, it's sad that I even need to say that.

I grew up as a good farm kid, I knew exactly where the guns were, where the ammo was, every other thing. As someone who went to school in a district comprised of several rural towns joined together, I'd be confident in saying well over half my graduating class was in the same situation.

Oddly enough, none of us ever brought our guns to school and shot each other. None of us even shot ourselves. Weird, isn't it?

Maybe messed up people do messed up things, and they use the tools they find. It's dumb to say, "We don't have any guns and hardly anyone gets murdered with guns!" and try to use that as logic for gun laws elsewhere. That's like saying you hardly get any sodium from your french fries if you eat at a sushi place.

Surely their stance on guns is not connected to politics or profit.
m.mayerbrown.com...

The Chicago office's record of public service is well known. Our attorneys have held a range of political offices-including Assistant US Secretary of State, Attorney General for the State of Illinois, Counsel to the Governor of State of Illinois, Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party and, currently, US Representative for Special Political Affairs to the United Nations-and represent both major parties. Several of the City of Chicago's recent corporation counsels and the Mayor's Chief of Staff came directly from Mayer Brown.

I never will understand the logic some people use.

If there's a "no guns allowed" sign, your typical law-abiding citizen won't bring a gun there- because they're not interested in breaking the law.

If you wanted to shoot and kill a bunch of people, you don't listen to the sign that says no guns allowed. You might even see that and think "hey, nobody else here is armed, they don't stand a chance!"


Guns are allowed in the US- until such a time they manage to take that away, stop nit-picking on where they are and are not allowed with bickering lawyers and stupid signs.


I've said this before, but apparently I need to say it again:

ONLY the law abiding citizens in this country follow the LAW.
The more laws you make, the more perfectly rational, sane, good people become criminal by the standard of law. We now have SO MANY contradictory laws in this country that it's practically impossible not to be a criminal by the standard of law- but I'm not going to compare legal and illegal to right and wrong, because they're very different things.

Six cops ganging up on and killing some guy in a jail cell?
Legal, but wrong.

Some dude walks into a burger joint (which has a "no guns sign posted) and shoots up the place?
Illegal, and also wrong.

Someone with a concealed weapon enjoying his lunch at that place puts that psychopath down like a rabid dog?
Illegal, but not wrong.

Some dude walks down the street to a taco truck, buys a taco with US dollars, and then eats it?
Legal, and not wrong.

Same dude barters for his taco?
Not wrong, but probably illegal. (Tax evasion on both parties unless both claim a cash value when filing taxes)


Welcome to america, good luck with your journey...

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

We do NOT have lax gun laws. What we have are spineless idiots as Judges and prosecutors that don't enforce our CURRENT and MANY laws on the books now. Until our CURRENT and MANY laws are enforced to their MAXIMUM extent, nothing will change here.

Go on and bash us legal and responsible firearm owners all you want, we aren't the ones you should worry about. It's the CRIMINALS doing the very vast majority of firearm related crimes and not getting punished.

Interesting. If anyone as an employee or customer that enters a business that displays a sign that says "No Guns Allowed" thinks they are safer than an establish that doesn't post the sign is fooling themselves. AND, if a business feels they will not be sued by someone injured or killed on their premise even though they did have that flimsy sign posted in their window is also fooling themselves. This is America. I'm not a lawyer but my first question to Mr/Mrs. business owner would be ".... and as a business owner, whats steps other than putting a flimsy sign in your window did you take to prevent the person that discharged a weapon in your establishment that killed 3 people?" People will sue those with the deepest pockets no matter what.

Thank goodness for this 'Country's' Second Amendment to the Constitution.