Tennessee Bill Grants Immunity for Toleration of Second Amendment Rights

Ammoland ^ | 21 April, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In Tennessee, SB 1736(pdf)  has passed the House and the Senate. It is a bill that grants immunity for toleration of Second Amendment rights.

It has been enrolled and sent to Governor Bill Haslam.  Governor Haslam promised to sign “Constitutional” carry if it reached his desk, six years ago.  It seems likely that he will sign this bill.

The bill passed the Senate 26 to 4, the House 77 to 13.  The bill follows a trend started by Wisconsin and Kansas, where people who chose to allow others to exercise their Second Amendment rights are granted immunity from civil action for any harm that may stem from that decision.

The Tennessee bill starts with the other side of that position.  People who actively prevent permit holders from exercising their Second Amendment rights may be held liable for harm to the permit holders.  Essentially, if you disarm someone, you are responsible for their defense.  Here is the legislative summary of SB1736. From capitol.tn.gov:

Present law authorizes persons in control of property to post a notice that prohibits firearms on the premises. This bill imposes a duty of care on any person who posts their property to prohibit firearms whereby such person will be responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises and traversing any area to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder’s firearm is stored. The duty of care created by this bill will extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.

[marktwain]

The bill also grants immunity from civil suit for people who do not post their premises against the legal carry of arms.

[Spktyr]

This idea is something I’ve advocated for years. Many businesses post ‘no guns’ signs and bar legal carriers from their premises not because of any direct animosity towards guns but because they believe that permitting guns on their property will leave them legally liable; this is reinforced by insurance companies’ policy costs. If they are held specifically responsible for the personal safety of the disarmed and immunized against civil action if they leave people’s defense in their own hands, those signs will come down and insurance companies will quickly change their minds.

[Terry L Smith]

IN this convoluted, upside down and *ackwards state that my country has come to, this is an intelligent bill.

This all stems back to the very day, that the following words were found hurtful by some queer somewhere, and that queer then vowed to exact their revenge upon the entire populace:

“NONE OF YOUR (EXPLETIVE) BUSINESS!!”

[tet68]

How will this affect municipal and government buildings?
I have said for a long time that these entities must allow for a gun check system other wise they are forcing someone
to be disarmed between their vehicle and the gun free area.

[Captain Rhino]

The “duty of care” mentioned in the last sentence of the excerpt has a special meaning in the law. Here is a short article on the term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

Just by chance, the article cites the factors that Tennessee law evaluates to determine whether a duty of care exists in a negligence action.

- The foreseeability of the harm or injury;
- The possible magnitude of the potential harm or injury;

- The importance or social value of the activity engaged in by the defendant;
- The usefulness of the conduct to the defendant;

- The feasibility of alternative conduct;
- The costs and burdens associated with the alternative conduct;
- The relative usefulness of the alternative conduct;
- And the relative safety of the alternative conduct.

The first two factors deal with the threat. The second two will the activity being engaged in. The last four with the alternative measures that could be taken to minimize or eliminate the threat.

[Spktyr]

In some states (like Texas) municipal and government buildings except courts, jails, prisons, etc., are already prohibited from barring legal carry - so it wouldn’t affect those states.