Met with Tn Hospitality Assoc CEO Walt Baker

[macville]

Overall I think the law should exempt all property owners from the independent actions of HCP holders on their property as it to pertians to using the handgun. On the flipside, I think if a property owner does post against carry, then they should be held liable for anything that happens to you because you were disarmed.

I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, it's someone's private property. Even thought their property is open to the public, they still own the property and should be able to chose who they serve. That's what freedom is about. On the other hand, we should be able to protect ourselves anywhere we go.

What would be better is a law that would not allow any lawsuits against businesses because they allowed firearms in their building. To be fair, it should the same for businesses which don't allow firearms either (remember, it's THEIR property!) This is not about a business's neglect like not cleaning up a puddle of water. This is entirely about customers hurting each other and no neglect on the business's part. We need to make laws easier on businesses so they can be more competitive and less foolishly restricted.

I believe for a lot of small businesses it really didn't have anything to do with the safety of their customers or even being "afraid" of guns. It seemed like a lot of owners were afraid of being sued if someone does use a firearm (legally or illegally) in their business. To be honest, that's probably a fair assumption. HCP holders here in TN can not be sued civil court if we are found to have legally shot someone. Businesses should get even better protection by not being able to be sued period. The only thing you should be able to get charge/sued for is serving someone who you know is carrying (IE clearly open carrying.) Even then, that should only go against the person who actually served the drink(s). To me, this just makes common sense.

Matthew

[Guest db99wj]

The problem with this argument of liability is that it is perceived bull****. If it were true, and they post, but do not provide security, then you can sue for not providing security for the safety of the patrons. If you don't post, you can sue for allowing guns in. Same thing, either way they do it, it was like that before the law too. Point being, you can sue for anything. They are crying that they will be sued if they don't post, that is what the Restaurant asso's are telling them, they are failing to mention and they are failing to realize is that it can happen the other way too. No guns sign, someone shoots the place up, sued for not providing protection.

How about reform for frivolous lawsuits.

[Guest justme]

How about reform for frivolous lawsuits.

I don't see how filing a lawsuit because you were injured in a posted restaurant that was just held up could be considered frivolous.....I would advise anyone so injured in a posted restaurant to pursue litigation and hold the restaurant accountable....

they want to post fine--they have that right under Tennessee law, BUT they should not complain when they are sued into bankruptcy when someone is hurt as a result of their utter and complete disregard for human life when they do decide to post and then fail to provide armed security.

Edited July 24, 2009 by justme

[Guest db99wj]

I don't see how filing a lawsuit because you were injured in a posted restaurant that was just held up could be considered frivolous.....I would advise anyone so injured in a posted restaurant to pursue litigation and hold the restaurant accountable....

they want to post fine--they have that right under Tennessee law, BUT they should not complain when they are sued into bankruptcy when someone is hurt as a result of their utter and complete disregard for human life when they do decide to post and then fail to provide armed security.

Thank you for making my point. The restaurants are scared of a perceived liability costs if they don't post. They are looking at a one way street, "We have to post, or we will be sued, worse, our rates will go up" In reality, if this were true, they also have a "liability" issue if they do post and don't provide security. If you read all my post, you will see that this is the point I am trying to make.

Sorry that my sarcasm and whole point didn't show in my previous post, but it really goes back to all my comments and the point I am attempting to make.

[ngoeser59]

I think that you can't say....restaurants should NEVER be held liable. Because there are certain situations where they should be. Bars/Restaurants that are in "bad areas" of town where there have been multiple shootings up and down the block....if they do not provide proper security for their patrons then yes, I believe they are liable if someone gets killed in their establishment. They have to foresee that something bad could happen when they are in that type of location. So to completely remove liablity from the establishment would NOT be fair to the victim/victim's family that were simply there trying to enjoy a meal and the owner/owners of the place did not do what they should to protect their patrons to a certain extent. Location, location,location. Of course crime can occur anywhere but the probablity is higher in these locations.

I will say this....establishments that are 21 & up should for damn sure be checking id's to make sure people entering are actually 21 and they should have bouncers (that have been trained on how to remove a troublemaker successfully without risk to other patrons). They should probably also have an armed guard. They should especially have an armed guard if they are in a bad area.

Edited July 24, 2009 by ngoeser59

[Guest db99wj]

I think that you can't say....restaurants should NEVER be held liable. Because there are certain situations where they should be. Bars/Restaurants that are in "bad areas" of town where there have been multiple shootings up and down the block....if they do not provide proper security for their patrons then yes, I believe they are liable if someone gets killed in their establishment. They have to foresee that something bad could happen when they are in that type of location. So to completely remove liablity from the establishment would NOT be fair to the victim/victim's family that were simply there trying to enjoy a meal and the owner/owners of the place did not do what they should to protect their patrons to a certain extent. Location, location,location. Of course crime can occur anywhere but the probablity is higher in these locations.

I will say this....establishments that are 21 & up should for damn sure be checking id's to make sure people entering are actually 21 and they should have bouncers (that have been trained on how to remove a troublemaker successfully without risk to other patrons). They should probably also have an armed guard. They should especially have an armed guard if they are in a bad area.

I do agree. They should be held liable for different things as you mentioned above. My point is not about a case by case, liability situation for the restaurant, but towards the generality of the argument that the restaurants and restaurant association is basing their argument on. Basically, their argument is flawed, due to only applying what part they want to make their case and the whole "liability and the cost of coverage" argument is BS.

[LagerHead]

I think that is very fair. However, should the restaurant be held liable for what a criminal does "if" they do not allow HCP Holders to be in their establishment (to give people a fighting chance at survival). In other words.....if they create a situation where everyone is basically a "sitting duck" then can they be held liable for "failure to protect a patron?" Or is it a situation where everyone who entered those doors, did so at their own risk? Just a thought, that's all..... Comments please.

I too think that is fair. Before this law passed, if you chose to go out to a restaurant to eat, you had no choice but to leave your weapon at home. Now, however, you can go eat Italian food at a place that will protect your rights, or one that doesn't. So if you choose to go to one that doesn't, you have consciously made the decision to spend that time unable to defend yourself. The restaurant owner, even though they posted, did not make that decision for you. Therefore I believe they are relieved of liability.

You have to be responsible for your own decisions and the consequences thereof.

[ngoeser59]

Wow this discussion is getting pretty deep & detailed huh. Can you imagine what this is going to be like when this thing goes to court in less than 90 days? A Big Ol' Mess.

[Fallguy]

I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, it's someone's private property. Even thought their property is open to the public, they still own the property and should be able to chose who they serve. That's what freedom is about. On the other hand, we should be able to protect ourselves anywhere we go.

Well...right or wrong, private property owners don't have sole control over their property. They can not allow smoking even if they want to. They can't deny service/entry to persons based on color, religion etc.... IMO they should not be able to deny entry to those lawfully carrying firearms. So I don't think they should be liable for the lawful use of those firearms either, just because someone carried them in. But if they have no liabilty for the firearms being in their place, and still ban them, I feel they should be liable if another's actions harm you because you were unarmed.

I understand as things are now, you pretty much assume the risk of disarming if you choose to still enter a posted place. Just as you assume the risk of prosocution if choose not to disarm.

What would be better is a law that would not allow any lawsuits against businesses because they allowed firearms in their building. To be fair, it should the same for businesses which don't allow firearms either (remember, it's THEIR property!) This is not about a business's neglect like not cleaning up a puddle of water. This is entirely about customers hurting each other and no neglect on the business's part. We need to make laws easier on businesses so they can be more competitive and less foolishly restricted.

No law can bar someone from access to the courts. Even in the self-defense law you mention, someone can still sue you for using your weapon in self-defense. The law just says if it is determined to justifiable, the person who brought the lawsuit will be ordered to pay your attorney fees, lost time from work and any other expenses incurred in defending the suit.

I would argue that it is neglect on the property owner's part if he disarms you and something happens to you. However I know that probably wouldn't hold up in TN as of know...since as already said, you can simply choose not to enter and disarm.

I believe for a lot of small businesses it really didn't have anything to do with the safety of their customers or even being "afraid" of guns. It seemed like a lot of owners were afraid of being sued if someone does use a firearm (legally or illegally) in their business. To be honest, that's probably a fair assumption. HCP holders here in TN can not be sued civil court if we are found to have legally shot someone. Businesses should get even better protection by not being able to be sued period. The only thing you should be able to get charge/sued for is serving someone who you know is carrying (IE clearly open carrying.) Even then, that should only go against the person who actually served the drink(s). To me, this just makes common sense.

Matthew

I think a "loser pays" lawsuit system in general would be good. I mean as it now, many times someone really has nothing to loose by suing someone...so why not give a try...maybe they'll pay just to make it go away. But if they had to pay for the other persons expenses if they loose, it may make them think twice about how good the case is before the proceed. I mean thankfully that is they way it is for us, civilly, if we use our weapon in self-defense. I agree it should be the same for the property owner or anyone else that may be named in a lawsuit.

I don't think anyone should recieve blanket immunity before the fact of the situation are known. As you said, there are times that a propety owner may be liable for their action or even the actions of others. But not if they simply allow a lawful action (permited handgun carry) in their place.

Sorry...got a bit long winded and probably repeated myself a few times...lol

[Fallguy]

Wow this discussion is getting pretty deep & detailed huh. Can you imagine what this is going to be like when this thing goes to court in less than 90 days? A Big Ol' Mess.

Won't have to imagine...I'll see ya there again...

[netmindr]

What about a business's liability if they choose to post and something happens on the way to their place and you were disarmed simply because you cannot carry 'into' their establishment? If they 'choose' to not allow you to protect yourself inside their business then they also 'choose' to disarm you on your trip from your vehicle to their building, whether or not it is on their property, and should likewise be held liable for that.

Now, I'm not saying 100% that restaurants choosing to post should be held responsible for 100% of the incidents that occur - just because you are armed is no guarantee that you will be able to avoid or neutralize the situation. But if they can be held liable for what occurs inside their building they should also be held liable for what happens in transit to their building.

Which brings up another beef I have with banning HCP holders from carrying in certain places. We are very much in need of legislation that will allow us to protect ourselves and our families while we are walking to and from such places. I thought about this a few weeks ago when walking about a mile from my car to the ballpark in Cincinnati to see a ball game. I can carry in my car and I can legally carry on the street, but I cannot carry into the ball park, both because they serve alcohol and they have chosen to post - everywhere. Therefore I was necessarily disarmed between my car and the ball park.

While Cincinnati may not be Detriot or DC, it's still not safe. My thoughts are that the city should be held liable for anything that should happen to me since the local government has chosen not to give us any options.

I believe there needs to be legal accomodations for HCP holders to be able to disable or unload our weapons upon entering such places so as not to infringe on our rights outside of them. I realize it is not feasible to have someone at the door check to make sure that I have disabled my gun and that other people will not feel safe seeing me do so, but we need some type of legislation to account for this scenario which happens everywhere that is either posted or otherwise banned.

[Guest db99wj]

snip snip

I think a "loser pays" lawsuit system in general would be good. I mean as it now, many times someone really has nothing to loose by suing someone...so why not give a try...maybe they'll pay just to make it go away. But if they had to pay for the other persons expenses if they loose, it may make them think twice about how good the case is before the proceed. I mean thankfully that is they way it is for us, civilly, if we use our weapon in self-defense. I agree it should be the same for the property owner or anyone else that may be named in a lawsuit.

I don't think anyone should recieve blanket immunity before the fact of the situation are known. As you said, there are times that a propety owner may be liable for their action or even the actions of others. But not if they simply allow a lawful action (permited handgun carry) in their place.

Sorry...got a bit long winded and probably repeated myself a few times...lol

Thank you, great solution and the point I was trying to make/eluding too regarding my frivolous lawsuit comment, but you put it in a way that is much mo better!

[macville]

Well...right or wrong, private property owners don't have sole control over their property. They can not allow smoking even if they want to. They can't deny service/entry to persons based on color, religion etc.... IMO they should not be able to deny entry to those lawfully carrying firearms. So I don't think they should be liable for the lawful use of those firearms either, just because someone carried them in. But if they have no liabilty for the firearms being in their place, and still ban them, I feel they should be liable if another's actions harm you because you were unarmed.

Which is really absurd if we call our nation "free." As much as some people might find it raciest/sexist/etc., I believe that a business owner has a right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. That's what freedom is about. If someone is a racist and you disagree with that, then don't do business with them. It's that simple. I look at my own business of video production and think that I shouldn't be forced to make a video for a company/person who I don't agree with.

Think of it this way. Why should you have take responsibility for other people's actions once they step on to your property? I don't understand why owner's rights get trampled when you chose to go on their property. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there should be a total blanket free run for owners. But they need protection just as much as we do. I think if that was more the law, many places would have not posted, or at least not had that excuse.

BTW, personally I think it's MUCH wiser for places to not post. I know the anti-gun people have been very vocal about not going to places that do not post, but probably 99%+ of those people were just saying words and will not follow up with actions. HCP holders, on the other hand, will actually follow through on their words!

Matthew

[Fallguy]

Which is really absurd if we call our nation "free." As much as some people might find it raciest/sexist/etc., I believe that a business owner has a right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. That's what freedom is about. If someone is a racist and you disagree with that, then don't do business with them. It's that simple. I look at my own business of video production and think that I shouldn't be forced to make a video for a company/person who I don't agree with.

Think of it this way. Why should you have take responsibility for other people's actions once they step on to your property? I don't understand why owner's rights get trampled when you chose to go on their property. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there should be a total blanket free run for owners. But they need protection just as much as we do. I think if that was more the law, many places would have not posted, or at least not had that excuse.

BTW, personally I think it's MUCH wiser for places to not post. I know the anti-gun people have been very vocal about not going to places that do not post, but probably 99%+ of those people were just saying words and will not follow up with actions. HCP holders, on the other hand, will actually follow through on their words!

Matthew

I think we are actually pretty close on our thinking.

I agree...this country is definetly as free as it should be.

I also understand what you are saying about property owners rights. I'm just feel that if a private property owner opens his property to the public, then to some degree he should accept others who are simply exercising their rights (being armed).

As far as liabilty goes...when I say there are cases that the property owner should be held liable....I'm not talking he should be held liable just because a BG showed up and did bad things...I agree, he has no control over that. I'm saying (although I don't think currently it would be this way) that the property could/should be liable for his action of disarming you and then something happening.

Again I know you can simply choose not to enter if you have to disarm. I'm just feel that if you legally carrying you shouldn't have to make the choice to either disarm or not do business with a place. Remember...several states don't allow private property owners to post or at least a posting does not carry the weight of law.

[macville]

I think we are actually pretty close on our thinking.

I agree...this country is definitely as free as it should be.

I also understand what you are saying about property owners rights. I'm just feel that if a private property owner opens his property to the public, then to some degree he should accept others who are simply exercising their rights (being armed).

I understand what you are saying, but why should he give up the right to what he allows on his property just because he opens up his property to the public.

As far as liabilty goes...when I say there are cases that the property owner should be held liable....I'm not talking he should be held liable just because a BG showed up and did bad things...I agree, he has no control over that. I'm saying (although I don't think currently it would be this way) that the property could/should be liable for his action of disarming you and then something happening.

Again I know you can simply choose not to enter if you have to disarm. I'm just feel that if you legally carrying you shouldn't have to make the choice to either disarm or not do business with a place. Remember...several states don't allow private property owners to post or at least a posting does not carry the weight of law.

But there are businesses that you can not do business with unless you agree to some things first. Think of white-water rafting businesses. You can not go rafting unless you sign a doc stating that you will not hold the company responsible if something goes wrong. While not exactly the same, I view it that by entering a place that is posted, I am giving up the right to defense myself with my firearm. I don't really like that idea so I won't go into a place that makes me disarm (unless it's a courthouse or school) unless I really have to (meeting in such a place or last min out with friends.)

Here's what it really boils down to me for. I know many people on this board disagreed with me about the national carry law. The argument was they didn't want the Federal gov telling the states what to do--even though I said the Feds had the right to tell the states to respect each others carry permit because it falls under the 2d. Well, if you don't want the Feds telling the state what to do, why do you want the state telling a private business owner what to do? As a citizen do you like the Feds/State telling you exactly what to do? The state, I believe, has wisely given people the power to do what THEY want to do with THEIR property. If you don't like that, then change their mind or don't go on their property. What they missed was providing legal cover for business owners from frivolous lawsuits. If you had no choice about going into a place, which to be honest I can not think of a SINGLE reason you don't have a choice, then I might understand making lawsuits okay against places that post. However, that's simply not the case. It's yours, and yours alone, whither you decide to go in certain places. Now, if a courthouse in TN posted and then didn't screen people coming in, I would be all over their butts, since you can get legal requirements to be there at times--or be put in jail.

I am sick of being told by the government, both as a citizen and a business owner, what exactly I have to do down to the last little detail. It's my property, butt out. If the founding fathers had wanted as much regulation as we now have, wouldn't they have made those laws when they started the country??? (I know that's a slight exaggeration since they didn't have most of the tech we now have, but it's basic idea still rings true when you think about SS, Welfare, & Medi-care.)

I personally think the key to getting restaurants to stop posting (which it seems to be probably under 5% of places in TN from all the posts I see on here saying places HAVEN'T posted) is to educated people. I know that will be hard with the liberal media, but I think around Jan 14 and next July 14 we need to be writing into papers and whatever other media outlets we can hit and make it well known that nothing has happened yet with people going crazy in restaurants/bars. If we can get the avg joe to understand that permit holders are mostly good people, then we will have more people on our side and hopefully in the future get the carry laws loosened more.

Matthew

[Fallguy]

I understand what you are saying, but why should he give up the right to what he allows on his property just because he opens up his property to the public.

I'm not saying he doesn't have rights, I just feel that if he is open to the public that as long as someone is not disrupting his business they shouldn't be barred for a legal activity...or definetly not supposed consitutional right.

But I know you and aren't going to see 100% eye-to-eye on this, and that is ok.

But there are businesses that you can not do business with unless you agree to some things first. Think of white-water rafting businesses. You can not go rafting unless you sign a doc stating that you will not hold the company responsible if something goes wrong. While not exactly the same, I view it that by entering a place that is posted, I am giving up the right to defense myself with my firearm. I don't really like that idea so I won't go into a place that makes me disarm (unless it's a courthouse or school) unless I really have to (meeting in such a place or last min out with friends.)

Yes, you sign the waiver on rafting, although 90% of the times waivers aren't worth the paper they are written on, but that waiver is saying you won't hold them liable for actions outside of their control. The waiver would not protect them if they had faulty equipment, not enough life jackets, were untrained, etc... Also....let's say there was a heavy rain the night before, that caused stronger than normal rapids on the river, the waiver may not protect them if you can show they knew, or should have known, that a more dangerous condition than normal exsisted and they did nothing to protect you. Of course you could have just not gone rafting, but you expected them to provide a resonable safe experience. My argument is by disarming you they are creating that more dangerous than normal (at least normal for you) enviroment.

Again...I know today that a lawsuit based on a posted sign would probably be thrown out right away...I'm just expressing my view on the situation.

But I admit I am a stong advocate of personal responsibilty as well and if you don't feel you can safely go somewhere or be able to defend yourself as you see fit, then you probably shouldn't go.

Also I agree that frivilous law suits are an issue and large problem overall in the country.

[Guest HexHead]

I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, it's someone's private property. Even thought their property is open to the public, they still own the property and should be able to chose who they serve. That's what freedom is about.

Using that argument, they should be able to put up "No Blacks" or "No Gays" signs if they want to. Why is discriminating against someone who's proven themselves to be a law abiding citizen and has been vetted by the State okay?

[Fallguy]

Using that argument, they should be able to put up "No Blacks" or "No Gays" signs if they want to. Why is discriminating against someone who's proven themselves to be a law abiding citizen and has been vetted by the State okay?

That is sort of my point.....

Now private clubs, those who restrict entrance to members, can place almost any condition upon people for entry and you accept those restrictions if you want to be a member.

But (again just IMO) a place that is open to the public should not be able to deny anyone entry to someone, unless they have caused past problems or will obviously cause a disturbance by entering.

Remember...carry has always been legal (unless posted) in places that are not open to the public that serve alcohol for onsite consumption. So at least in some cases the law does see a difference between private property open to the public and that which isn't.

[macville]

Using that argument, they should be able to put up "No Blacks" or "No Gays" signs if they want to. Why is discriminating against someone who's proven themselves to be a law abiding citizen and has been vetted by the State okay?

To be honest, I have no problems with that. I think that's what freedom is about. They are free to post whatever the like. Personally, if someone posts something like that, then I won't do business with them. But it's their property and they can do what they want with it.

The difference between our views is what you consider public. The only thing that is public is property owned by the government. I don't believe that people give up any rights because they open their property up to the "public". It's still private property. Do you have any problems with people who post no smoking signs on their business even though they are not required by law to post? What about no shoes/shirts no service?

The difference in our views is that I believe people should have pretty much absolute rights on their property in regards to who they allow on it and what they can bring on it. Doesn't matter if you are open to the "public" or not.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree. What I do believe we all believe in is businesses not being sued when a HCP holder shoots someone legally or illegally (depending whether they were involved somehow: aka serving booze to someone who was open carrying or even CCW). I am a firm believer that the next session of the TN senate should pass a law state as such for all businesses. But what would that look like?

I believe such a law should offer at min the same protection that HCP holders already get from the state. If the shooting was legal, then the place of business can not be sued in civil court. Even in an illegal shooting (murder, HCP has been drinking, etc) the place should not be held liable UNLESS they committed a crime (serving a drink obviously, puddle that should have been cleaned up and a HCP holder slips and gun goes off (I'm sure the anti's think that will probably happen 50 times a year), etc.)

But what should such a law look like?

Matthew

[ngoeser59]

I still believe Restaurants do have a duty to protect their patrons. If a murder occurs there and they did not have any form of security (bouncer(trained)/armed security(trained) that could have handled the situation or minimized it....they are negligent. If someone gets shot & killed and they had nobody on the property to regulate and that victim had no chance at survival....they are negligent. Especially if the establishment is in a bad area of town.

Edited July 25, 2009 by ngoeser59

[Guest HexHead]

The difference in our views is that I believe people should have pretty much absolute rights on their property in regards to who they allow on it and what they can bring on it. Doesn't matter if you are open to the "public" or not.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah we will. Once you open a business to the public as opposed to making it a private membership club, you lose many rights on restricting who may enter. If these places want to restrict who their customers are, they need to make them private clubs.