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.
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!!”
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.