For something which has worked, at least in Virginia: http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/iurist/docket.htm#VA
Here is some information on premises liability suits, but I do not think they are completely, as we say, on 'all fours:' http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/lt_ency.html#Subtopic105 I am always keeping my eyes peeled for a suitable addition to the page.
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19970715/960494.htm
http://www.injurylawyer.com/cases.html
Without a doubt, Landowners and business Tenants should be held accountable for the risks they impose on their guests and invitees, and the same holds true for employers as well.
A private cause of action for interference with a civil right http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/banagun.html should result in a civil penalty, as well as a criminal penalty if death or injury results -- such as in the Georgia Day Trader shootings, Luby's Cafeteria, the Long Island Rail Road or any of the school shootings. Those who introduced and passed the victim-disarmament legislation should be held to account for civil rights violations (section 1983) and for breach of oath of office (section 3331).
I don't know if anyone has successfully brought these sort of actions, but outlandish causes of action never stopped the Left, and we have the law -- at least that which is on the books -- on our side. The tough part will be finding judges that will not play deaf, dumb and blind to the Constitution.
Regards,
Rick V.
Craig wrote:
>
> FYI - the Wal-Mart at Chris Town has been posted 'No Firearms
> Allowed'. I mentioned the usual arguments to a few of the store
> personnel - they looked at me as though I was from Mars.
>
> The general manager's name is apparently Patrick Minder,
> 602/246-1700. I'll call him tomorrow and rattle the cage. We'll see
> how he responds.
>
> I was there with my family, and I was surprised that I could feel my
> temper rising as I explained the situation to their staff. I'll have
> to work at making more light of this foolishness in the future.
>
> BTW, the place was a zoo. One of life's less pleasant shopping
> experiences anyway ...
>
> One question - does anyone know of legal precedent for increased
> retailer liability due to these inane signs?
>
> Craig
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/iurist