Posted on 01/23/2016 4:12:11 PM PST by aimhigh
This legislation creates owner liability for gun owners who get victimized in a gun free zone.
(b) Any person or entity authorized to post property pursuant to § 39-17-1359 who elects, pursuant to that authority, to prohibit the possession of firearms by a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, thereby assumes absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of the permit holder while on the posted property and while on any property the permit holder is required to traverse in order to travel to and from the location where the permit holder's firearm is stored.
(c) The responsibility of the person or entity posting for the safety and defense of the permit holder shall extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.
(1) Any handgun carry permit holder who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct occurring on property that is posted pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall have a cause of action against the person or entity posting. In addition to damages, the person shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitol.tn.gov ...
Breathtaking!
We need this in all “shall issue” states and in all “open carry” states.
I don't want anyone telling me what I allow on my property and I afford the same respect to others... even if I think they ARE a dumbass.
Very good. It is about time we put sanity back in our legislation.
I expect insurance companies to start assessing massive surcharges on businesses that are “gun free zones”.
Excellent....I hope other states legislation’s pick up on this great idea...
We have this in Wisconsin.
And if they have the no gun sign up but nobody checking, you can ignore the sign.
Sounds good to me.
I don't see this as a demand, it's making property owners liable for their PC idiotic decisions...
If I go to the movies and want to defend myself if some lunatic goes crazy, the theater owner should be held accountable if I am not allowed to.....
HORRIBLE legislation. Who pays on ‘govt property’?? Schools and the like. Or is govt, as usual, ‘exempt’?
A private biz owner has EVERY right to refuse any person, for ANY reason they can dream up. Doesn’t mean one is obligated to patronize said biz.
One is not so lucky when it comes to govt....’obligations and visitations’.
Fantastic! Needs to be duplicated in every red state! And even some blue ones where the Repubs control both houses - like Virginia.........
Check this out...
Been saying this for a long time. All places posted gun free are accepting responsibility for the safety of everyone in their gun free zone and are liable for any damages to person or property therein.
Let’s see how many places want to take that liability on. I hope this goes for any governmental establishment too including the Post Office.
I love it. I’ve been looking for a new state in which to live. Might have to go for a visit and see how the business climate is.
And his responsibility.
This doesn't force anyone to do anything. If they want to make their location a gun-free zone, they are still perfectly entitled to do so. However, by disarming individuals who are authorized by the State to carry and, as a result, are making those individuals incapable of defending themselves, they must .. and should .. assume the responsibility for their defense.
I really am getting tired of people thinking they can force private property owners to bend to their demands. If I see a gun free zone sign and choose to disarm and go inside anyway, I made a choice. His property, his rules, his rights.
So if you don’t want to disarm, you don’t go in, right?
What if you don’t want to disarm, but have to go in?
What if some guy then starts to shoot up the place?
Who’s responsible for your safety?
” His property, his rules, his rights.”
I also agree with you about private property. However, commercial businesses are required to accept all customers nowadays, and I don’t see why I should be rejected just because I have a permit to carry.
I’m not so clear about the liability of the property owner for acts out of his control though.
So...you're saying one class of citizen is responsible for the consequences of his choices, but another (property owner) isn't?
Interesting...
These aren't government buildings or services (in which case there should be NO provision to allow them to ban firearms). The way I see it, you either believe in private property rights, or you don't. Trying to play the middle makes us no better than those on the other side.
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.