McDonalds Now A No Carry Zone

[SteveS]

Didn't cost me anything .

So, you expect us to believe that a lawyer did this for free?

I'll take things that never happened for $500, Alex.

Matter of record - that they know that legal gun owners have stopped shootings & saved lives and gun free zones are targets for the criminals

They know that a sign isn't going to make a difference, either way. They are just virtue signaling.

Bet the media would be on the side of the victim be it a mother or child that's was killed or injured --and a person with a CPL
was there and stated he could have stopped the assailant if he was allowed to carry his SELF DEFENSE weapon.

I'll take that bet. Unless the CPL holder is off-duty LE, they will never get positive coverage by the media.

Negligence would be up to the jury,

It will never make it to a jury. It will never survive summary disposition.

Be it known that a letter stating the dangers of gun free zones was sent to the company/ corporation
and they ignored it - would have an impact.

See the previous answer.

Does not matter what they are being sued for - the premise is that issues that are thought safe from law suits
are not any longer.

That isn't how the law words. There are lots of barriers. It does matter what you are being sued for. How many lawsuits have you been involved in?

Ask McDonalds about the hot coffee ( yes it was reduced to 40 thousand dollars) . Legal fees far exceed that amount.

Hang on a minute....I asked them and they wondered what that had to do with a no-guns sign. They also said that their conduct was negligent and they are sorry about the coffee.

Make them think -- about eliminating gun free zones for legal concealed carry persons and the possible consequences of keeping a gun free zone.

As it stands, the consequences are basically nothing, which is why they are siding with the people that want them to be GFZs. They know that most gun owners won't care and will continue to eat there and conceal. The handful that will stop going there don't amount to much lost profits. They know, as a matter of law, they can't be held liable if someone does shoot someone else on their property.

My viewpoint it is all about open carry -- -- I am a fan of open carry - I don't do it, but the right to assemble and have guns visible is a great deterrent
against government overreach-
Example Nevada rancher government was going to seize his cattle for non payment of grazing fees -
My cousin who lived in AZ strapped on her 45 colt single action drove all the way there to be part of the protest.
Was stopped miles from the confrontation but so many people got to the ranchers side , a show of citizens armed for justice backed the government down. Actually defused a potentially volatile situation .

Fine with me.

The only way a corporation can be made to change is hit them in the wallet .
Letters lay the ground work incase by some chance a favorable verdict is rendered against a gun free zone business / company / corporation.
Should that happen, a reminder letter that they had been informed of the hazards of a gun free zone previously .

I agree that they will usually act to protect profits. The problem is that, under the current law(s), they aren't liable for the unforeseen criminal act of a third party. That has been the law for centuries. Their lawyers know this. Sending letters saying they are liable, putting them on notice, or berating them will not make them actually liable. Their lawyers know this. If you want to get them to change, convince all the gun owners to stop eating there.

That's it Epistles over.

Whew, I didn't think it would ever end.

[Leader]

So, you expect us to believe that a lawyer did this for free?

I'll take things that never happened for $500, Alex.



They know that a sign isn't going to make a difference, either way. They are just virtue signaling.



I'll take that bet. Unless the CPL holder is off-duty LE, they will never get positive coverage by the media.



It will never make it to a jury. It will never survive summary disposition.



See the previous answer.



That isn't how the law words. There are lots of barriers. It does matter what you are being sued for. How many lawsuits have you been involved in?



Hang on a minute....I asked them and they wondered what that had to do with a no-guns sign. They also said that their conduct was negligent and they are sorry about the coffee.



As it stands, the consequences are basically nothing, which is why they are siding with the people that want them to be GFZs. They know that most gun owners won't care and will continue to eat there and conceal. The handful that will stop going there don't amount to much lost profits. They know, as a matter of law, they can't be held liable if someone does shoot someone else on their property.



Fine with me.



I agree that they will usually act to protect profits. The problem is that, under the current law(s), they aren't liable for the unforeseen criminal act of a third party. That has been the law for centuries. Their lawyers know this. Sending letters saying they are liable, putting them on notice, or berating them will not make them actually liable. Their lawyers know this. If you want to get them to change, convince all the gun owners to stop eating there.



Whew, I didn't think it would ever end.

Are you sure Steve?

[SteveS]

Are you sure Steve?

Hang on one sec...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………....……………………………..Yes.

[Leader]

Hang on one sec...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………....……………………………..Yes.

Ok....

Someone told me lawyers are smart so I'll take your word for it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[MountainGun]

Ok....

Someone told me lawyers are smart so I'll take your word for it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

After spending a small fortune on law school you would hope so!

[StoneyBones]

Ok....

Someone told me lawyers are smart so I'll take your word for it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Someone told me trolls live under a bridge...yet heres one on MGO

[Bikenut]

Someone told me trolls live under a bridge...yet heres one on MGO

To those living in the Upper Peninsula (Yoopers) everyone who lives in Lower Michigan (the mitten) are trolls because they live under the Mackinac Bridge.

I was born a Yooper then became a troll when the family moved to the mitten. But my Gramma didn't get run over by a reindeer.

[Roundballer]

Ok....

Someone told me lawyers are smart so I'll take your word for it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

After spending a small fortune on law school you would hope so!

Assumes facts not in evidence.
Obtaining the J.D makes them well educated, it has no correlation with any level of intelligence (smart).

[HemiChallenger]

Has anyone noticed signs at other mcD's?

I think this sign has to do with mcD being in the mall. As far as I remember most malls are criminal safe zones, cant be for sure as I dont go to any of them.

[Meanie]

Agree. Haha made me laugh seeing that they don’t want guns in there but the amount of crap that goes into their food it safe. Yeah ok- how about we focus on better quality food and not try to regulate the no carry rule

Maybe they should change the sign to "No guns allowed because our food will kill you soon enough"