PawPaw x 3
The problem is that they want MORE security and restrictions not that the right to self-protection was taken away and resulted in the death.
Precisely. Their allegations thus far are failure to enforce the restrictions per the contract - essentially failure of the security agency hired by the venue, and through their hire the venue itself, to adequately fulfill their contracted obligations.This lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with guns or weapon carry policies.
The family of the deceased is not alleging that being a self-declared gun free zone is part of the problem.
For all we know, the Plaintiffs may argue that the gun ban should have been more vigorously enforced.
It's not like they're suggesting armed citizen good guys and gals could've saved the singer's life.
Wasn't there a woman in Texas whose father was killed in a restaurant or something that fit most if not all of those? Can't remember the exact. I would guess that the more people who carry and the more those business owner idiots who are diametrically opposed to the 2nd amendment there are, the more likely we would see those requirements as you posted filled completely.The only way a plaintiff's suit could ever stand a chance of succeeding on those grounds, Bkite, would be if the victim of a violent crime could say ALL of the following statements are true:
1.) I normally carry a gun.
2.) I would certainly have been carrying a gun at the XYZ business on that date and time, if I had a choice.
3.) I was not given a choice-- I had to disarm due to the published rules and policies of that business.
4.) The law of the State where that business is located does not make such a business off-limits; the business could have chosen to allow armed customers who have carry permits and are legally carrying per state law.
5.) Because I was disarmed, I was defenseless. The gun the business made me leave locked in my car was the ONLY effective way to protect myself.
6.) Given the exact details of how this crime took place, I'm sure that HAD I been armed, I would have been able to drop the bad guy before he got a shot off, before he hurt me or any innocent person.
7.) I was hurt by the criminal that the store prevented me from protecting myself from.
Without all of those statements above being true, there's no suit. No way to win on "gun rights" grounds.