Tennessee just went in the right direction

tennmike

This is great news! I can only hope it passes, the governor signs it, and that other states follow suit. It's just placing into law the concept of implied liability.

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/28/want-a-gun-free-zone-tennessee-says-thats-on-you-literally/?utm_content=buffer014c4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Heading into law this Friday is Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1736, which will put into action something gun owners have been encouraging for years.

As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.

In layman’s terms, any permit holder injured as a result of being stripped of their right to self defense, and their handgun, in a posted gun-free zone can file a lawsuit within two years of the event as long as they meet the following requirements:

were authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident
prohibited from carrying a firearm because of a gun-free sign
the property owner was not required to be posted by state or federal law and posted by choice

Can you imagine? Holding gun-free zone property accountable for injuries people sustained by being disarmed and left defenseless? Groundbreaking.

Think this legislation belongs in your state? Call your representative today, then get your friends and community involved as well. If it has to start with one person, why shouldn’t it be you?

NCFUBAR

Hmmm ...

(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.

So that means to and from your vehicle also. Hope it goes through but it would not stand a chance here in NC with our major liberal centers here screaming about how that would cost businesses and jobs.

zorba

Try it in Commiefornia...

tubabucknut

tennmike wrote: »

This is great news! I can only hope it passes, the governor signs it, and that other states follow suit. It's just placing into law the concept of implied liability.

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/28/want-a-gun-free-zone-tennessee-says-thats-on-you-literally/?utm_content=buffer014c4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Heading into law this Friday is Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1736, which will put into action something gun owners have been encouraging for years.

As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.

In layman’s terms, any permit holder injured as a result of being stripped of their right to self defense, and their handgun, in a posted gun-free zone can file a lawsuit within two years of the event as long as they meet the following requirements:

were authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident
prohibited from carrying a firearm because of a gun-free sign
the property owner was not required to be posted by state or federal law and posted by choice

Can you imagine? Holding gun-free zone property accountable for injuries people sustained by being disarmed and left defenseless? Groundbreaking.

Think this legislation belongs in your state? Call your representative today, then get your friends and community involved as well. If it has to start with one person, why shouldn’t it be you?

I do not like it. If it is not a location that one must go to, then they, as a private businesses, have every right to not allow firearms. If a movie theater does not allow carry, then you as a ccw holder have every right to watch a movie somewhere else. If a restaurant does not allow carry, then you can eat somewhere else. How is this not big government forcing one person's world view on another. How is this not the same as forcing a baker to make a gay couples cake. I am against laws that require every household to own a gun. How is this freedom for the individual to choose their own path. I am against any law that forces another to acquiesce to my world view. I fail to see how the business owners freedoms are protected in this. Saying all of that, if someone chooses to ban my ccw, they are a complete idiot. It is their right to be a complete idiot.

Teach

For 20-something years, Mary had to drive over 20 miles to work and back on rural Tennessee roads, unable to defend herself because her employer would fire anyone who chose to have a firearm, even locked in their personally-owned vehicle in the parking lot. She worked a LOT of late-night shifts. I'm all for this kind of legislation to protect a person's right to self defense which is being restricted by someone who insists on having a gun free zone on their premises. Lock and load, ambulance chasers!
Jerry

snake284

zorba wrote: »

Try it in Commiefornia...

Get your stuff loaded and get the hell on the road to Texas, We'll take care of you. Don't worry about wearing your skirt. Show em your gun and your NRA card. We'll vouch for ya!

:driving:.......:up:.......:tooth:

Varmintmist

tubabucknut wrote: »

I do not like it. If it is not a location that one must go to, then they, as a private businesses, have every right to not allow firearms. If a movie theater does not allow carry, then you as a ccw holder have every right to watch a movie somewhere else. If a restaurant does not allow carry, then you can eat somewhere else. How is this not big government forcing one person's world view on another. How is this not the same as forcing a baker to make a gay couples cake. I am against laws that require every household to own a gun. How is this freedom for the individual to choose their own path. I am against any law that forces another to acquiesce to my world view. I fail to see how the business owners freedoms are protected in this. Saying all of that, if someone chooses to ban my ccw, they are a complete idiot. It is their right to be a complete idiot.

:agree:

Teach

Nobody's stopping anyone from having their own little "safe zone"- - - -they're just being put on notice that they're REALLY responsible for providing a safe environment when they do!
Jerry

tennmike

tubabucknut wrote: »

I do not like it. If it is not a location that one must go to, then they, as a private businesses, have every right to not allow firearms. If a movie theater does not allow carry, then you as a ccw holder have every right to watch a movie somewhere else. If a restaurant does not allow carry, then you can eat somewhere else. How is this not big government forcing one person's world view on another. How is this not the same as forcing a baker to make a gay couples cake. I am against laws that require every household to own a gun. How is this freedom for the individual to choose their own path. I am against any law that forces another to acquiesce to my world view. I fail to see how the business owners freedoms are protected in this. Saying all of that, if someone chooses to ban my ccw, they are a complete idiot. It is their right to be a complete idiot.

It is nothing more than implied liability becoming a law with teeth. If you slip in that movie theater on spilled buttered popcorn, fall and break your leg, the theater is responsible. They are required to provide a safe atmosphere for their patrons. Same for restaurants, malls, and other businesses. Liability is on them for injuries incurred because of their actions, or lack thereof to keep their patrons safe while on premises.

The businesses can still prevent firearms on their premises. Did you not read that? Or did you just judiciously step around that like it was a big juicy pile of cow flop?

Rights and responsibilities. Quaint concept. You have the right to refuse armed patrons, but you are responsible for their safety while on the premises. Failure to do so is the business owner's liability. How hard a concept is that to comprehend? Obviously pretty hard.

If someone comes into your yard and gets hurt, who is going to be held responsible in civil court? Well, it isn't your neighbors so that narrows it down a little.

tubabucknut

Yep. And you get to keep your doctor also. Bakers can still refuse to bake a cake for gays. They just have to pay the fine.

I do not believe a restaurant or theater has any responsibility to protect me from attack by armed gunmen. Cleaning the floor is a responsibility of theirs.

If someone comes onto my property, with my permission, and hurts themselves, through my negligence, then yes I am responsible. If not they can pound sand. Will they sue? yes. Is it right? Hell no.

You have the responsibility to protect yourself. No one else does.

By your argument you believe the Colorado theater should be sued for the mass shooting there. I guess Pulse is financially liable for the mass shooting there. The office building in California should be sued no? What about the Hotels in Mumbai? Should they not pay for the attacks there?

This proves the argument that Rs and Ds are no different. They just choose to use Gov Co to force different positions on their subjects.

This is bad Law.

Buford

Good luck but not in a million years.

Jeeper

tubabucknut wrote: »

Yep. And you get to keep your doctor also. Bakers can still refuse to bake a cake for gays. They just have to pay the fine.

I do not believe a restaurant or theater has any responsibility to protect me from attack by armed gunmen. Cleaning the floor is a responsibility of theirs.

If someone comes onto my property, with my permission, and hurts themselves, through my negligence, then yes I am responsible. If not they can pound sand. Will they sue? yes. Is it right? Hell no.

You have the responsibility to protect yourself. No one else does.

By your argument you believe the Colorado theater should be sued for the mass shooting there. I guess Pulse is financially liable for the mass shooting there. The office building in California should be sued no? What about the Hotels in Mumbai? Should they not pay for the attacks there?

This proves the argument that Rs and Ds are no different. They just choose to use Gov Co to force different positions on their subjects.

This is bad Law.

The Orlando (Pulse) shooting is different. STATE law requires no guns in bars, so they cannot be held liable for that.

This law does not prevent businesses from saying "no guns". It just holds them accountable if they fail to provide safety for those few who would have done it for themselves if they could.

Luis

coolgunguy

Like Mike, I consider this a step in the right direction. I also agree with Tuba's statement regarding a gun owner's freedom to choose, ("no guns" = no business...even if the business WILL be held liable, I'm still not giving them my money if I can avoid it) but I want businesses to make this decision only after thoughtful consideration, not out of some knee-jerk reaction to current events.


I find it interesting the state (not singling Tennessee out, no state will step up to that particular plate) is excluding itself from any liability while attempting to mandate it for others. :roll:


Baby steps, I suppose.

bisley

I can see the merits of both arguments. The devil is in the details, as it is in any law. It is extremely difficult (actually, impossible) to make any rule or law that accounts for every possibility. It may just be that this is the sort of law that actually needs to be decided by court cases, and probably will be, even with the legislation in place.

In theory, at least, I agree that if a person or entity deprives a person of the ability to defend himself, that person or entity is at least partly responsible for the defense of that person against attack. If a person can reasonably refuse to come on the property, because of that prohibition, and he knows it in advance, then the property owner should be absolved of responsibility. Sounds a bit too 'lawyerly,' I know, but it is a tricky subject, and needs to be spelled out pretty well.

Obviously, any would-be attacker is the responsible party for any injury that might be incurred, but I believe that the property owner must assume some of the responsibility, if he prevents a law abiding citizen from taking reasonable precautions. That leaves it up to a jury to decide each case on its individual merits, and it is completely conceivable that multiple honest juries would would not be consistent in the way they assigned blame.

Some things just cannot be properly legislated, but that never prevents politicians from doing it, anyway. Very few (if any) laws are ever made that do not favor one party over another. Majority rule is the favored outcome, but in these days when we all seem to be split right down the middle, about everything, that is almost impossible.

snake284

bisley wrote: »

I can see the merits of both arguments. The devil is in the details, as it is in any law. It is extremely difficult (actually, impossible) to make any rule or law that accounts for every possibility. It may just be that this is the sort of law that actually needs to be decided by court cases, and probably will be, even with the legislation in place.

In theory, at least, I agree that if a person or entity deprives a person of the ability to defend himself, that person or entity is at least partly responsible for the defense of that person against attack. If a person can reasonably refuse to come on the property, because of that prohibition, and he knows it in advance, then the property owner should be absolved of responsibility. Sounds a bit too 'lawyerly,' I know, but it is a tricky subject, and needs to be spelled out pretty well.

Obviously, any would-be attacker is the responsible party for any injury that might be incurred, but I believe that the property owner must assume some of the responsibility, if he prevents a law abiding citizen from taking reasonable precautions. That leaves it up to a jury to decide each case on its individual merits, and it is completely conceivable that multiple honest juries would would not be consistent in the way they assigned blame.

Some things just cannot be properly legislated, but that never prevents politicians from doing it, anyway. Very few (if any) laws are ever made that do not favor one party over another. Majority rule is the favored outcome, but in these days when we all seem to be split right down the middle, about everything, that is almost impossible.

One thing would solve this. Make it unconstitutional to ban guns. That's what everyone of us ultimately wants anyways. The antis would Pitch a Bitch for sure, but the only thing that would make them happy is confiscation anyway. Screw 'em!

Make_My_Day

Better to ignore the signs and take your chances with being caught. Most likely the worst that could happen is they ask you to leave. Here in Florida I have almost never seen a sign outside a business that said "No Guns Allowed."

tennmike

Make_My_Day wrote: »

Better to ignore the signs and take your chances with being caught. Most likely the worst that could happen is they ask you to leave. Here in Florida I have almost never seen a sign outside a business that said "No Guns Allowed."

I don't really look for the signs so I don't know with any certainty how many are in my area. They ARE at the hospitals and Dr. offices. Since Dr.s kill around 400,000 people a year I guess they don't want the competition.

Make_My_Day

tennmike wrote: »

I don't really look for the signs so I don't know with any certainty how many are in my area. They ARE at the hospitals and Dr. offices. Since Dr.s kill around 400,000 people a year I guess they don't want the competition.

Yeah now that you mention it I have seen signs at hospitals, but I ignore those too.