Want a Gun-Free Zone? Tennessee Says That’s on You: LITERALLY

Bearing Arms ^ | June 28, 2016 | Jenn Jacques

[Road Warrior ‘04]

I agree. Conceal carried for years before I knew there was such a thing as a conceal carry permit.

[fireforeffect]

Except the law says no such thing.

The actual laws says that a store owner who does not post a “gun free zone” sign can not be sued by someone who is injured in a shooting.

[10mm]

"You are entering a gun free zone, enter at your own risk"

I agree with this sign. I may be the only one here who disagrees with this law. I believe the owner of private property is lord and master of that property, and can determine what, or what is not allowed. If they post the above sign, you can still choose to enter their property AT YOUR OWN RISK. If you don't want to enter their property unarmed, you have the right to not enter.

That being said, "public" property should never be allowed to be "gun-free". This only applies to private property.

[TauntedTiger]

You beat me to it.

SB1736

Weapons - As enacted, provides IMMUNITY from civil liability to a person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by positing, with respect to any claim based on the person’s, business’s, or other entity’s failure to adopt such a policy. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

[clamper1797]

I live in Arizona ... no CCW permit required

[Svartalfiar]

The actual laws says that a store owner who does not post a “gun free zone” sign can not be sued by someone who is injured in a shooting.

Exactly this. The article is poorly written (devil's in the update at bottom, even though the author still misinterprets some stuff down there), to not explain the bill properly. HB 2033, which was what the excerpt WAS about, was deleted and replaced with SB 1736. Originally the bill was supposed to impose a 'duty of care' on anyone who posted a no-gun zone. The Amendment fully deleted that, and now only shields business owners from lawsuits if they don't post a no-gun sign. Pretty much a wasted piece of legislation that hardly does anything. NOT ANYTHING to be excited about.

Actual bill text: http://share.tn.gov/sos/acts/109/pub/pc0947.pdf

[Gideon7]

Pretty much a wasted piece of legislation that hardly does anything. NOT ANYTHING to be excited about.

Actually it will still take down a lot of the no-guns signs. The reason so many shopping malls and other public establishments have a no-guns restriction isn't because they don't like guns themselves per se, but because the insurance companies all require a no-gun policy as condition of getting liability insurance.

The new law is basically a civil suit safe-harbor exemption that says that the business owners cannot be sued for the use of a legal firearm for self defense or other justifiable purpose on their premises.

Insurers no longer have a need to force blanket no-gun requirements in their insurance policies. This alone will take down a lot of signs.

The law as written is far from perfect, but it's not a bad start.

[Svartalfiar]

Actually it will still take down a lot of the no-guns signs. The reason so many shopping malls and other public establishments have a no-guns restriction isn't because they don't like guns themselves per se, but because the insurance companies all require a no-gun policy as condition of getting liability insurance.

True. It's still a huge step down from what the bill originally was, and a lot of people here on FR think the bill actually does, since no one reads actual articles. It protects a few business owners, instead of protecting the populace as a whole.