A good thing from the Restaurant carry lawsuit?

[Fallguy]

While I have nothing to really base this on...I am still truly hoping the lawsuit is eventually dismissed.

However, I wonder if some good could come from it all.

It seems one of the reason restaurant owners are against the law is because of what they see as the possible liability on their part for the actions of a HCP holder on their property.

Maybe this discussion can open the door for new liability and/or non-liability legislation to be introduced next year.

Again...no hard facts to base this on, but I figured that one of the main reasons a business may post against carry is the liability (real or perceived) on their part for the actions of a HCP holder on their property.

...and let's be honest, if someone injured in a shooting does sue, the property owner will probably be named since they are the "deep pockets".

So a law that specifically said the property owner is not liable for the independent actions or results of the actions of a HCP holder on their property would give them some ease and for sure one less reason to post.

But...on the flip side, if the above is done and the place still chooses to post against carry, I would like to see a HCP holder specifically be able to seek damages if something occurs in a place.

[Guest redbarron06]

What I want to know is if the suit is successfull can we turn around and counter sue under "equal protection under the law" as the law allows LEOs to carry into these same places.

[Fallguy]

What I want to know is if the suit is successfull can we turn around and counter sue under "equal protection under the law" as the law allows LEOs to carry into these same places.

Not sure...and that may be a better question for the current thread on the lawsuit. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/22892-challenge-guns-bars-law-nashville-attorneys-david-randolph-smith-adam-dread.html

[Wingshooter]

I agree, I think some good things could come out of this as long as the judge uses good wisdom and logic on July 13. If we prevail, it will strenghten our position.

I think they are overplaying the liability issue. I know anyone can be sued for just about anything, but i am still trying to wrap my brain around how they could actually be held liable for complying with state law. If an injury occurs, seems like they could just say "State law allows HCP holders in my restaurant".

I see it similar to someone injuring me with their car in the parking lot. The state allows that person to have a driver's license and drive. I wonder why the restaurant doesn't post "No Cars" signs (well, I know the answer - $$$). After all, that is a very real and possible injury scenario campared to the HCP/gun issue. Unless it related to the design of the parking lot/signage/cross walk/etc., I don't see how the property owner could be held liable for the actions of the driver.

[dunndw]

If they're worried about libility...then why can't they be sued every time someone gets robbed for not providing a safe working enviroment?

[Tim Nunan]

While I have nothing to really base this on...I am still truly hoping the lawsuit is eventually dismissed.

However, I wonder if some good could come from it all.

It seems one of the reason restaurant owners are against the law is because of what they see as the possible liability on their part for the actions of a HCP holder on their property.

Maybe this discussion can open the door for new liability and/or non-liability legislation to be introduced next year.

Again...no hard facts to base this on, but I figured that one of the main reasons a business may post against carry is the liability (real or perceived) on their part for the actions of a HCP holder on their property.

...and let's be honest, if someone injured in a shooting does sue, the property owner will probably be named since they are the "deep pockets".

So a law that specifically said the property owner is not liable for the independent actions or results of the actions of a HCP holder on their property would give them some ease and for sure one less reason to post.

But...on the flip side, if the above is done and the place still chooses to post against carry, I would like to see a HCP holder specifically be able to seek damages if something occurs in a place.

The "liability" issue has been brought up many times and the consensus seemed to be that the establishment couldn't be held accountable for an unpredicable/unexpected/etc. act.

If that is so why would the establishment be liable by allowing HC permittees there?

[Tim Nunan]

I've always thought that the Tennessee Restaurant Association and the restaurant owners liked hiding behind the law rather than having to make the decision to allow legal carry or not. Having to make the decision as the law now requires means the customer can also decide whether or not to spend money there and this is the crux of their problem... it is all about money.

[Fallguy]

The "liability" issue has been brought up many times and the consensus seemed to be that the establishment couldn't be held accountable for an unpredicable/unexpected/etc. act.

If that is so why would the establishment be liable by allowing HC permittees there?

I agree that I don't think property owners are really liable now.

However a law that specifically said that may be helpful I think and clear up any uncertainty.

[Guest HexHead]

I agree that I don't think property owners are really liable now.

However a law that specifically said that may be helpful I think and clear up any uncertainty.

I hope you don't think that would stop the opposition? They'll just roll out the rest of their litany of lies.

These nutjobs are just grabbing at any handy straws to try and stop us. Today it's liability. Tomorrow it'll be "for the children". They're running purely on emotion, not facts or logic.

btw, I'm against any legislation relieving these ****ers from any liability.

[Fallguy]

I hope you don't think that would stop the opposition? They'll just roll out the rest of their litany of lies.

These nutjobs are just grabbing at any handy straws to try and stop us. Today it's liability. Tomorrow it'll be "for the children". They're running purely on emotion, not facts or logic.

btw, I'm against any legislation relieving these ****ers from any liability.

No, I don't think it will stop the lawsuit....and that's not what I am really talking about with all of this.

I just think this situation could help change the law on liability, which would be a good thing overall I believe.

....and why are you against a law that would relieve a property owner (not just restaurants) of liability because you shot at a bad guy and maybe hit an innocent bystander? Is it really the property owner's fault the innocent got hit just because the allowed you to carry in there?

Granted I don't think they property owner is liable as it is now, but that doesn't stop them from being in the lawsuit...and as it stands now, they have no specific protection under any statute.

However as I said, the flip side is, if it is clear the property owner has no liability for your actions and he still chooses to post, then yes, I think he should be liable if something happens to you and you may have otherwise been able to prevent it had he not caused you to disarm.

[Worriedman]

Clearly, there is intent on the part of the Legislature for Owners of restaurants to at least have the potential to be responsible for safety of their patrons, else why would they give the right in statute form for the Owner to carry, or assign an employee to carry, where otherwise it is restricted?

Notice also, there is no stated requirement for training of the Owner, or their employee, nor any mention of needing to undergo a background check, for the ability to go armed in a venue that serves alcohol.

TCA 39-17-1305. Possession of firearm where alcoholic beverages are served.

(a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for on premises consumption.

( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

© The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who is:

(1) In the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the army, air force, navy, coast guard or marine service of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of duties as a correctional officer employed by a penal institution; or

(2) On the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or who is the employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property.

[Guest HexHead]

No, I don't think it will stop the lawsuit....and that's not what I am really talking about with all of this.

I just think this situation could help change the law on liability, which would be a good thing overall I believe.

....and why are you against a law that would relieve a property owner (not just restaurants) of liability because you shot at a bad guy and maybe hit an innocent bystander? Is it really the property owner's fault the innocent got hit just because the allowed you to carry in there?

Granted I don't think they property owner is liable as it is now, but that doesn't stop them from being in the lawsuit...and as it stands now, they have no specific protection under any statute.

However as I said, the flip side is, if it is clear the property owner has no liability for your actions and he still chooses to post, then yes, I think he should be liable if something happens to you and you may have otherwise been able to prevent it had he not caused you to disarm.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear? I don't think if liability is taken off the table it will change anything. It's a straw man argument and if it goes away, they'll just move on to some other perceived fear to object over. Liability is just the flavor of the day.

I also don't think they should be relieved from liability because a) I'm vengeful about them acting like asshats and If I have to defend myself in a bar, it's probably because they let (or encouraged) the other guy to get that drunk that he became a problem. They should be totally liable for that and deserve to get their asses sued off, just like they do when they allow people to get that intoxicated and then get behind the wheel of a car. They should be held accountable for being free and easy with the booze just to make a buck. They've been getting a free pass on that for far to long.

[Fallguy]

Perhaps I wasn't being clear? I don't think if liability is taken off the table it will change anything. It's a straw man argument and if it goes away, they'll just move on to some other perceived fear to object over. Liability is just the flavor of the day.

I also don't think they should be relieved from liability because a) I'm vengeful about them acting like asshats and If I have to defend myself in a bar, it's probably because they let (or encouraged) the other guy to get that drunk that he became a problem. They should be totally liable for that and deserve to get their asses sued off, just like they do when they allow people to get that intoxicated and then get behind the wheel of a car. They should be held accountable for being free and easy with the booze just to make a buck. They've been getting a free pass on that for far to long.

Maybe I am not clear...I am not talking about just restaurants and bars.

Why are so hung up on bars and restaurants?

I am talking about grocery stores, hardware stores, banks or any other private property open to the public.

Yes, some property owners may come up with another argument. But I do think there are some that post just because of the perceived liability on their part of allowing armed individuals on their property. If the liability was clearly removed, I think some property owners would not post.

[Guest HexHead]

Maybe I am not clear...I am not talking about just restaurants and bars.

Why are so hung up on bars and restaurants?

I am talking about grocery stores, hardware stores, banks or any other private property open to the public.

Yes, some property owners may come up with another argument. But I do think there are some that post just because of the perceived liability on their part of allowing armed individuals on their property. If the liability was clearly removed, I think some property owners would not post.

Because THEY'RE the ones causing all the trouble! What grocery stores, banks etc are posted? I very rarely see a posted sign, other than a couple of malls that have had gang problems.

I don't think that the liability is an issue. There are just some people that don't like guns and think only the police should have them. It's really just that simple.