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]

What are these property rights so many lay claim to?

---

They exist in a number of places and ways.

In Amendment V:
“or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

In Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The right to control who you allow onto your private property is so basic that private property in real estate essentially does not exist without it.

Then there is the right of free association, so fundamental that it was not thought necessary to mention it in the Bill of Rights. It certainly is included under Amendment IX.

[Darksheare]

2A is a right that all are entitled to.
And if there are armed people here, then a discussion about the merits, demerits, theory, and usage of our respective tools will be had.
The right of self defense is universal and absolute.
That was one of the things the founders said.
Now, how about a discussion about intent?
If they are here for nefarious purposes, then they aren’t under the “defense” banner. Are they?

[SauronOfMordor]

I’ve seen reports that some insurance companies pressure businesses to ban guns on the premises, as a “safety” measure. This would counterbalance that.

[Mr. Lucky]

I’m sorry, but the right to bear arms has never been recognized to allow some one to carry on private property over the objections of the property owner.

[Darksheare]

I’m sorry, but self defense does not end at a property line.
Show me, if you could, where the founders said the right of self defense was limited in such fashion.
Hint: they did not.
They recognized that a person needed to defend themselves always.
And pretty much everyone was armed back then.

[marktwain]

There were plenty of unarmed people at the time of the signing of the Bill of Rights.

There is no doubt in my mind that the founders would have been appalled at the idea that property owners could not chose who would enter their property.

They would also be appalled at the idea that people be searched for arms against their will.

The only reference to private establishments banned arms that I have found was an institute of higher learning that banned students from possessing guns on the basis that it would be a distraction from their studies.

[SgtHooper]

Yup. We saw that with the faggot birthday cake episode. It’s all or none.

[Darksheare]

And it was a problem.
The founders recognized that self defense is a right.
They would be appalled at the thought of free men being denied that right.
And for what, to make criminals feel good about themselves?
Give criminals a safer work space?

[Blue Collar Christian]

The property holders of gun free zones have nothing to fear from me. If they can enforce me not carrying in their establishment, I don’t go in. No going to venues with weapons screening for me.

[Mr. Lucky]

The Constitution doesn't address private rights between individuals, it addresses the rights of individuals vis-a-vis the central government.

You might read James Madison's essay Property published in the National Gazette on March 29, 1792. The right of a stranger to carry a firearm on private property doesn't trump the right of the owner to be secure in his own property. Burglary and criminal trespass have been criminal offenses throughout our country's history, and the common law before that.

[Darksheare]

“The Constitution doesn’t address private rights between individuals,”

It addresses rights enjoyed by all citizens.
Those rights are interleaved, and dependant on all others.
Those are rights granted by God that exist whether or not government says yea or nay.
Meaning they exist all the time whether you or someone else says boo to it.

[Mr. Lucky]

OK, so back to my question. Does a homeowner have the right to prohibit others from carrying weapons on his property?

[Darksheare]

Does the right of self defense exist, yes or no?

[marktwain]

Those are rights granted by God that exist whether or not government says yea or nay.
Meaning they exist all the time whether you or someone else says boo to it.

---

There is no natural right to enjoy another’s property.

You can make an argument that blanket demands by private property owners can “chill” other rights.

There is no right to trespass.

[Mr. Lucky]

Of course it does.

But you are going out of your way to avoid my question. Does a homeowner have the right to prohibit others from carrying firearms in his home?

[Darksheare]

Trespass is a crime.
And does not fall under this discussion.
The discussion is: a right to self defense was recognized by the founders, it exists whether or not you want it to.

Property owners who have a business known to attract criminal attacks take on the responsibility if they short sightedly deny the right of defense because they are busy wringing their hands over “eeeevil guns”.
Therefore, damages death and destruction caused by their demands of disarmament are on them.

[marktwain]

So, you seem to be saying if a number of gang bangers show up on a store owners property, armed, he cannot order them to leave?

[Darksheare]

You have your answer then.
Seriously, if a place denies your right of self defense you don’t go to that business.
Sadly, hard to do here in Nueva York.

[Darksheare]

Gang bangers are criminals.
You just invalidated your premise by using an invalid example.

[TexasGator]

My post was not to you. However, you have no obligation to go into Kmart or Walgreens.