MO: Bill Introduced to Hold Gun Free Zone Owners Liable for Damages

Gun Watch ^ | 5 December, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In 2016, SB 1736/HB2033 was passed in the Tennessee legislature. The bill was an attempt to hold businesses that chose to ban defensive firearms from their premises responsible for damages. That was a step to far for the Tennessee legislature. The bill was cut back to say that businesses that did not ban firearms would be immune from lawsuit for actions that resulted from their lack of a ban.

In Missouri, Representative Schroer has introduced a bill, HB 96, that is very similar to the original HB 2033 in Tennessee.

From news-leader.com:

The proposal, known as House Bill 96, which would apply when a person who is authorized to carry a firearm, is prohibited from doing so by a business and is then injured by another person or an animal.
If the injured person could otherwise have used a gun for self-defense, they could sue the business, which "assume(s) custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person" on their property who could carry.

Here is the opening paragraph of HB 96. From mo.gov:

1. Any business enterprise electing to prohibit the possession of firearms or other arms by the placement of signs as authorized under section 571.107, or other provisions of chapter 571, shall assume custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of an person who is authorized to carry fire arms or other arms under chapter 571 while such person is on the premises of the business enterprise. The provisions of this section shall not apply to private  property not used for commercial purposes or private residences of any type. For purposes of this section, "business enterprise" means any business that sells or provides goods or services to the general public.

The bill has not been scheduled for any committee hearings or any of the process that will be required to guide it through the legislature.  It has only been introduced.  If passed, it creates a powerful incentive for property owners or managers not to put up "No Gun" signs, or to take them down if they are now in place.

If property owners or managers put up a "no gun" sign, or leave one in place, they are held responsible for damages to legal gun carriers who disarmed because of the sign.  They are held responsible for damages that occurred to the legal gun carrier because of being disarmed on the way to and from the premises where they were legally prevented from being armed.  Only those locations that are required to be Gun Free Zones by state or federal law are exempted.

No thinking property owner, unless they are strongly politically or ideologically motivated, will go against these incentives.

The bill follows a trend in several other states.  Kansas grants immunity from liability to property owners and managers from damages that may result from legal gun owners possessing firearms on or in their property.  Wisconsin does the same.  Tennessee, as mentioned above provides a level of immunity to businesses which do not ban firearms.

The Missouri Legislature has been friendly to Second Amendment supporters.  Watch this space for future developments.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Holding property owners liable for damages related to disarming customers may infringe on property rights.

[rjsimmon]

Holding property owners liable for damages related to disarming customers may infringe on property rights.

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.

[sport]

If I lived there and wanted to carry,I would stay my ass out of places that did not want me with my gun.

[T. P. Pole]

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.

[Mr. Douglas]

Holding property owners liable for damages related to disarming customers may infringe on property rights.

---

I’m not seeing that. They have the right to disarm you, but they are then responsible for your safety. On the other hand, if they don’t disarm you, they put that responsibility squarely in your lap. You may choose to arm yourself or not.

[TexasGator]

One has no constitutional right to enter another’s property.

[fruser1]

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.

[Pearls Before Swine]

An argument can be made that by removing the ability to defend oneself, the proprietor who forces disarmament assumes an increased duty of safety.

[Gamecock]

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.

[rjsimmon]

One has no constitutional right to enter another’s property.

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.

[SaintDismas]

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.

[Puppage]

I would think this means my company assumes responsibility for my safety, since they are preventing me from doing so.

YOU are responsible for your own safety....but you already know that.

[Noumenon]

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.

[circlecity]

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.

[Darksheare]

My right to defend myself trumps that.
That right does not end at the property line.

[KrisKrinkle]

Holding property owners liable for damages related to disarming customers may infringe on property rights.

"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?

[marktwain]

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.

[Mr. Lucky]

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.

[Darksheare]

My right of defense does not end at the property line.
That is a fact.

[Mr. Lucky]

Does someone have a right to bear arms in, say, your home over your objections?