Yeah someone tried that argument (its been tried several times actually) but it has no legal weight.
You have competing interests - those of the private land owner and those of the private person with a CCW.
The law favors the higher rights of a land owner to be the master of his land and does not impose any additional duties generally on one who precludes others from having weapons on their private property.
Generally speaking, there is NO DUTY imposed on a land owner to provide absolute protection against the activities of criminals, and you cant hold the land owner liable for the criminal acts of others.
There are some limited exceptions but that would require a full semester of tort law to discuss.... no thanks....
There is movement in the Arizona Legislature to REQUIRE a public landowner to provide a secure method of locking up a weapon at the entrance of the property as a pre-requisite to being able to forbid presence of weapons on the property. This would essientially make is cost prohibitive for places like the Fiesta Mall to ban weapons without installing an industry rated secure system of lockers. Government buildings I regularly visit already have a system of secure lockers and I have never had a problem locking my weapon at the Capital or similar places.
Personally I carry my weapon everywhere its not prohibited by statute (bars, schools,). Before LEO's could say anything to me someone would have to first SEE my weapon (not very likely) and raise the issue with management. Management must then tell me to leave before the trespass could be invoked. Simply stated - I would personally carry my weapon at Fiesta Mall because its not a crime.
But then I have no problem working that close to the lines of what is and isn't legal and since our entire firm is an armed firm I have no problem getting pro-gun legal representation.
A point often lost here is that the Arizona CCW permit is a WEAPON permit, not a GUN ONLY permit. ASP batons, and any other less lethal weapons, when lawfully possessed, may be carried concealed by one who has a CCW permit in Arizona.
My personal preference is to have a range of force on me, and when I vault my handgun for some reason I still have other options that are NOT prohibited by statute.
For what its worth and certainly not intended as legal advice - merely an academic discussion of general interest...
Doc correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I heard of a case where a victim sued a location that did not allow them to carry a weapon after they were injured.
Their argument being that if a private location forbids you from carrying a weapon you are allowed to carry, they then take responsibility to protect you from injury.
I would guess there would be a requirement to prove that if you were indeed able to protect yourself, you had the opportunity to do so.
