Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

KROGER

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,971

    HB 4277 Immunity to businesses if someone uses a firearm in self-defense

    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2017-HB-4277

    Basically if a business does not prohibit guns explicitly, they can't be liable if someone who enters the business uses their firearm in self-defense.

    If they DO prohibit guns with a posted sign, this immunity does not apply.

  2. #2
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    Interesting, maybe a first step towards forcing employers to allow firearms stored in employee's vehicles?

    Currently, the business can't be held responsible for the actions of a third party anyways, sign or no sign. Or is this just an attempt to lower insurance rates for these businesses.


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  3. #3
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    Currently, the business can't be held responsible for the actions of a third party anyways, sign or no sign. Or is this just an attempt to lower insurance rates for these businesses.
    Businesses claim there are liability concerns which is why they ban guns. They don't want to be to blame for allowing guns by default by not banning them.

    This would take away that claim by stating outright that they CANT be held liable for not banning guns if someone uses them in self-defense.

    The only problem I see is that it's not clearly stated that there is no immunity if an agent of the land owner or tenant is armed for the purposes of their job (contracted security or staff security, for instance - a business owner or the contracted agency should be liable for their own employee's conduct, IMO).

  4. #4
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livingston Co.
    Posts
    19,770
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    Businesses claim there are liability concerns which is why they ban guns. They don't want to be to blame for allowing guns by default by not banning them.

    This would take away that claim by stating outright that they CANT be held liable for not banning guns if someone uses them in self-defense.

    The only problem I see is that it's not clearly stated that there is no immunity if an agent of the land owner or tenant is armed for the purposes of their job (contracted security or staff security, for instance - a business owner or the contracted agency should be liable for their own employee's conduct, IMO).
    And I think you should be liable for MY actions.

  5. #5
    I can't post links yet! Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Royal Oak
    Posts
    1
    Interesting. If this passes, it puts a responsibility on businesses who choose to ban firearms to enforce that ban.

  6. #6
    MGO Member luckless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    5,101
    Sure would put a wrench into the insurance industry refusing to allow guns in gun shows.

  7. #7
    Legal Forum Contributor / Super Moderator SteveS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ingham County
    Posts
    17,460
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    Businesses claim there are liability concerns which is why they ban guns. They don't want to be to blame for allowing guns by default by not banning them.
    I am skeptical of this claim. If it were true, why don't more businesses ban guns? I can understand a smaller business just nit knowing, but there are many large, risk averse corporations that would ban guns if they thought it would have an effect on them.

    As Roundballer already pointed out, a business is not liable for the unforeseen criminal acts of a third party.
    Opinions and comments made by me on this forum should not be considered legal advice.

  8. #8
    MGO Member Forum User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Dimondale
    Posts
    511
    I'm curious if this would affect the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter