Posted on 12/09/2016 6:30:58 AM PST by marktwain
Disagree. If a property owner makes a conscious decision to deprive another citizen of their Constitutionally protected right, then they should be held liable for any damage/injury due to that decision.
If I lived there and wanted to carry,I would stay my ass out of places that did not want me with my gun.
I’ve been thinking the same needs to be in place for places of employment. My work building (which generally only has employees, no customers) has the “no weapons” sign in place. I hold a concealed permit. I would think this means my company assumes responsibility for my safety, since they are preventing me from doing so.
Holding property owners liable for damages related to disarming customers may infringe on property rights.
One has no constitutional right to enter another’s property.
I think a similar bill in another state (I forget which) ran into issues and was modified dramatically.
A better approach might be to make them provide security, but not just a bouncer with a gun.
Fed buildings don’t allow you to bring in guns, but they do:
1)Run background checks on all employees.
2)Physically screen all visitors.
3)Have armed security patrolling the “gun free” grounds and buildings 24x7.
An argument can be made that by removing the ability to defend oneself, the proprietor who forces disarmament assumes an increased duty of safety.
Not at all.
It shows that the owner has the responsibility of providing a safe environment for all who enter the premises. No different than fire codes, building codes, etc.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects existing rights. If I have an obligation to enter another person's property, then I have the right to defend myself on that property. Should a property owner decide that their right outweighs the right of their guest, then they assume responsibility for the safety of their guest. This is the basis of tort law and bailments.
I think the person who would otherwise be armed and chose to enter the store anyway, made a calculated risk and made a decision. They are accountable too. Best bet would be to take your business elsewhere.
But if they’re going to pass this law it should apply to everyone including the govt. offices. Continue to check everybody at the courthouse just stop and ask for the paper.
YOU are responsible for your own safety....but you already know that.
Actions have consequences. Too many libs and their ilk firmly believe that no consequences attend to their very bad ideas. Like depriving others of their fundamental right to protect themselves and their loved ones. Time they were disabused of that.
I disagree with this and find it pretty much the same as holding firearms manufacturers liable for what others do with the guns the manufacture.
My right to defend myself trumps that.
That right does not end at the property line.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Do you have a similar authoritative statement for us regarding property rights?
Assuming such statement boils down to "The right of the people to keep and bear property shall not be infringed", how do you determine which right is infringed by the other?
What are these property rights so many lay claim to?
Tennessee had a similar bill.
It was modified to provide immunity from lawsuit for actions derived from not forbidding legally armed people from entering on their property.
That is sort of the mirror image of this bill, the carrot vs the stick.
I think it is the more correct approach.
The Constitution protects you as against the central government; it does not limit the right of a private property owner to control his own property. If a private property owner unreasonably restricts your behavior on his property, stay off of it.
My right of defense does not end at the property line.
That is a fact.
Does someone have a right to bear arms in, say, your home over your objections?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.