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

[Controlling Legal Authority]

That was the case in a former building I worked in. After sandy hook the building owner was asked if he was guaranteeing our safety by posting a “no guns permitted” sign. The sign came down the next day.

[TexasGator]

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

Your right to carry ends at someone else’s property line if they forbid you to come onto their property armed.

[Scythian_Reborn]

[Darksheare]

” if they forbid you to come onto their property “

And THAT is what I was waiting to see.
Your right to defense still exists, but going onto the property becomes criminal trespass.

So, don’t go!

[marktwain]

Gang bangers are criminals.

Alright, I will play.

Let us assume they have not been convicted of any crime.

But the store owner knows that they associate with known criminals and they dress like known criminals and have the culture of known criminals.

You are saying he cannot keep them off his property.

I think the argument you are making would more properly be “all or nothing”. If you allow me on your property, you allow me to be armed. If you will not allow me to be armed on your property, you should not allow me at all, or you take full responsibility for my defense.

It is a pretty good argument.

[Darksheare]

See post 44.

[rjsimmon]

However, you have no obligation to go into Kmart or Walgreens.

The law allows for public places that are privately owned and Constitutional protections still apply. If you are injured on their property, due to their policies which infringe upon your right of self protection, they are liable.

[Mr. Lucky]

Is a homeowner obligated to know the criminal history of anyone who steps foot onto his property? Does one black teenager have the right to carry one my property, but that right vanishes when he is in the company of, what, one or two others? Good ol'e boys who wear their pants up have the right to carry in my home but kids with baggy pants don't?

If there were a right to carry on the premises which superseded the property owner's prohibition, then the Castle Doctrine would be unconstitutional.

[WildHighlander57]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3503071/posts?page=1#1

We need this in Texas. (Paraphrasing the signs language below)

A lot of businesses have had signs saying ‘don’t carry concealed unless you have a permit’ & citing the 30.06 section of the state code.

Since the open carry passed, a number of businesses that previously didn’t have signs about weapons put up both the ‘don’t carry concealed’ and ‘don’t carry openly’ sections of the state code.

[Darksheare]

Walloftext!

Homeowner?
“MO: Bill Introduced to Hold Gun Free Zone Owners Liable for Damages”
Your home is a Gun Free Zone?
Well, now all the criminals know where to go.
Next.

[Mr. Lucky]

I can assure you that my home is not a gun free zone. But I can also assure you that no one else is permitted to carry on my property without my permission.

[marktwain]

My belief is that property owners have the right to restrict whoever they wish from their property, for any or no reason.

That right of free association has been routinely violated, including by the courts, since the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

The act should never have applied to private property.

[WildHighlander57]

Send that question to places like Half Price Books.

After the open carry passed in Texas, they put up signs saying ‘no open or concealed carry’ & cited the 30.06 and 30.07 sections of the state code.

[Darksheare]

“I can assure you that my home is not a gun free zone.”

So why say “homeowner”?
Why use invalid examples?

“without my permission.”

Post 44, permission is the crux.
I do not have a problem with someone being armed.
As a matter of fact and as stated, I would likely discuss the merits, demerits, and theory of whatever iron choices they chose.
BUT, my permission or lack thereof does not remove a persons right of self defense.
Politicians and idiots repeatedly forget that.
And what my lack of permission DOES do is make their presence ‘trespass’.

[WildHighlander57]

Clarification (again, paraphrasing)

The signs said ‘don’t bring it in at all, open or concealed’

[marktwain]

They have the right to do so. I do not have a problem with them being responsible for the security of people in their stores, then.

They have very aggressively banned the carry of weapons in their stores.

Everyone has the right not to shop their, and to complain to management.

[WildHighlander57]

I’m going to find out, in the case of half price books, where their main HQ is, and write them about this.

Plus any other stores I run into that has ‘no carry at all’ signs.

[xrmusn]

But I can also assure you that no one else is permitted to carry on my property without my permission.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
I was visiting a ret USMC COL and he showed me a new pistol he had in his house(we had talked earlier about buying one)and for some reason I showed him mine.

He had a ‘minor fit’ that I would dare be armed in his residence. He basically ended up saying it was HIS job to protect me in HIS house and gave me the impression he was ‘insulted’ by the fact that I was armed.

I did tell him that for the 10 years I knew him and the several times I had been in his house I was armed. (But that is why we call it concealed carry isn’t it?)

I also got the impression he would have been fine it I had informed him.

In Virginia if a business posts a sign saying no guns etal, it is just trespassing and if you leave there is ‘no problem’. I had a supply of cards with a slashed out gun and had the message, ‘You don’t want my gun, You don’t want my money’...But, as I stated earlier, That is why they call it concealed carry.

In the total of 6 years my grandson played baseball, I always carried but also felt my gun was in safer hands on me than in my truck (which was also ‘illegal’) Once you step out of your vehicle it is illegal for your gun to be on school property..loaded or unloaded.

A long long long way from when teachers and students carried their rifles mounted in the back window....

[Mr. Lucky]

My kids went to a parochial high school which drew a mix of kids from a 30-40 mile radius. During hunting season, it was common for the farm kids to invite friends from town to come hunting after school or over the weekend. Kids were allowed to bring firearms to school, so long as they did so openly and did not leave them in their cars, but brought them into the building with them.

[Red in Blue PA]

Nonsense. A TRUE GfZ is an airport terminal. If a business cannot provide this level of protection, they have no business demanding people go unarmed.