"Quick! Take down the signs! They're shooting where the SIGNS are at!!!"
Posted on 01/25/2016 2:46:08 PM PST by KeyLargo
TN Senator Pushes Bill to Hold Businesses Liable for Injuries in Gun-Free Zones
by AWR Hawkins 18 Jan 2016 Tennessee state Senator Dolores Gresham (R-Somerville) is pushing a bill to allow victims harmed in gun-free zones to sue those who instituted the zones if they can show they otherwise would have been armed for self-defense.
According to The Tennessean, Gresham's bill allows "any Tennessean with a valid gun permit to sue a property owner in the event of injury or death provided the incident occurred while in a gun-free zone."
Senate Bill 1736 helps business owners understand that by banning concealed carry on their property they undertake liability for concealed permit holders who are on the property unarmed. Business owners are responsible "to protect the gun owner from any incidents that occur with any 'invitees,' trespassers and employees found on the property, as well as vicious and wild animals and 'defensible manmade and natural hazards.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
"Quick! Take down the signs! They're shooting where the SIGNS are at!!!"
What no Criminal Liability?? They should be held Criminally Liable as well, under Felony Murder Rules it should be easy to Charge them as an Accessory
(One of the good things about election year politics!)
.
Perhaps good intentions but this is a bad idea. On private property, if you don’t like the rules you can keep off it. Anything else is simply government intrusion and we should be against it even if this instance is for something that benefits us.
Good. Now a bill doing away with sovereign immunity for officials who make it next to impossible to defend yourself. Like the Governor’s of New York and Ct.
No. You are conflating issues. Private business can refuse armed citizens from entering but if they do they should be able to be held liable for damages just as they can held liable for food poisoning.
No, you're conflating the issue. If a customer is in a store and another customer shoots him how can you hold the owner liable?
It's absurd. Private property rights, to me, are more important than forcing one's beliefs on a private entity.
Food poisoning was the direct result of the owner's actions. You want people made liable for a third person's actions.
Interesting.
Are property rights important when Trump used the state to try and take a womans property?
Do public accommodations have an affirmative duty to protect its customers if they will not allow you to protect yourself?
Certainly you have no such duty on your private property that is not a public accommodation. But when public accommodations are held liable for not baking a cake one would think they can be held liable for not protecting their customers if they disallow customers from protecting themselves. No?
How did Trump get into this?
No. Would you say the same about a church, a hospital, etc?
Certainly you have no such duty on your private property that is not a public accommodation. But when public accommodations are held liable for not baking a cake one would think they can be held liable for not protecting their customers if they disallow customers from protecting themselves. No
No. No one is forcing you to enter the business. If you don't feel safe don't enter. You make the choice.
“Perhaps good intentions but this is a bad idea. On private property, if you don’t like the rules you can keep off it. Anything else is simply government intrusion and we should be against it even if this instance is for something that benefits us.”
I concur. This is a two edged sword that will cut the other way when the 2A movement has no momentum. Always got to watch for the downside of things.
Nobody forces you to enter a business and come out with food poisoning yet when you do the business is liable. I am a big property rights guy but this issue is not as simple as you make it because the Federales have redefined public accommodations. If not I would agree with you. But it is not so simple anymore. If the state can take 200,000 from the baker to give to the homosexual couple because of the birthday cake then one would think you can hold the same baker liable for protecting you while in his public accommodation if he demands you not be armed while in there.
Trump enters all property rights discussions and rightfully so since he is running for POTUS.
I don't understand this objection. This law does not compel anyone to do anything. It merely clarifies the heightened liability is incurreed by any person or organization that prohibits the carry of firearms on their premises. The owner is prohibiting individuals from availing themselves of the most effective means available for their self defense. As such, from a legal standpoint they should be assumed to have affirmatively taken on the burden of their protection. If you don't want the additional liability, then don't disarm people. It's pretty straightforward.
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.