MY EARLIER POST ON liability for places that ban guns led to some objections: Malls are private property, so why can’t the owners exclude guns if they like?

Well, malls are only sort of private property. You can, for example, exclude people from your home because you don’t like their race or religion; mall owners can’t do that because it’s against public policy, and a mall is a place of public accommodation. In addition, business owners generally take on a higher duty of care for customers on their premises, including a duty to protect them from the violent acts of third parties if those acts are reasonably foreseeable. The question is, given the tendency of mass shootings to occur in places where guns are banned, and given that gun bans take away customers’ ability to defend themselves — and other customers — does this result in liability of shopping malls when such shootings occur? Or, at least, produce a duty to have more armed security than they otherwise would have (the Omaha mall appears to have had very little) in order to make up for the increased insecurity created by the gun ban? The question isn’t open and shut, but it seems to me to be ripe for litigation.