Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents

[TripleDigitRide]

If a Tennessee grocery store bans guns on its property and a black bear or wild hog kills or injures a person who otherwise would be carrying his or her gun, the gun owner would be allowed to sue the property owner if a newly introduced bill became law.

 

 

Leave it to The Tennesseean to use black bear or wild hog as examples as to why this bill is needed. God forbid they use real threats such as crackhead thugs and ISIS sympathizers.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/15/bill-allows-suits-over-gun-free-zone-incidents/78862948/

Edited January 16, 2016 by TripleDigitRide

[bersaguy]

And just how many bears and wild boars are we going to see in grocery store parking lot?........................... :wall: :wall:

[No_0ne]

And just how many bears and wild boars are we going to see in grocery store parking lot?........................... :wall: :wall:

 

Ever been to Somerville?

[Will Carry]

"I just walked out of the Quicky-Mart and there he was! He coming right at me!"

 

 

[monkeylizard]

Why did they have to specifically single out BLACK bears? #PolarBearLivesMatter.

[Grand Torino]

And just how many bears and wild boars are we going to see in grocery store parking lot?........................... :wall: :wall:

Let me think....it was just last week.....no...the week before...no never mind. It was a tiger.

[leroy]

The examples may be a bit ignorant; but the message aint... In english:..."...If you decide to disarm someone commin in to your business, you, the business owner, are responsible if i need protection from bad things and bad guys that a gun provides..."... I've been waitin for this one to come up... I think it will settle the "Property Rights" vs "Second Amendment self defence" thing pretty quickly... It's a concept whose time has come...

 

watchin leroy...

Edited January 16, 2016 by leroy

[nightrunner]

The examples may be a bit ignorant; but the message aint... In english:..."...If you decide to disarm someone commin in to your business, you, the business owner, are responsible if i need protection from bad things and bad guys that a gun provides..."... I've been waitin for this one to come up... I think it will settle the "Property Rights" vs "Second Amendment self defence" thing pretty quickly... It's a concept whose time has come...

watchin leroy...

I'm the biggest pro 2nd Amendment guy you will find, but more than that I am pro Liberty, period. The 2nd Amendment doesn't trump property owners rights. If I don't like guns, I should be able to keep you from bringing them on my private property. And being a business open to the public does not exclude me from private property owners rights.

Now, that being said, it should be a simple trespassing charge after asking you to leave and you refuse, no more. Maybe for the sake of the safety of patrons, have a sign along the lines of, no weapons permitted, enter at your own risk.

I am not willing to give up property owners rights in exchange for 2A rights, it doesn't work like that. If you are on property that another man owns, you go by his rules plain and simple.

[monkeylizard]

If you are on property that another man owns, you go by his rules plain and simple.

 

Except that it's not that plain and simple when it comes to a business open to the public. A business owner can't make his or her own rule that Hispanics aren't permitted, or that Jews aren't permitted, or that wheelchairs aren't permitted. I'm not saying that carrying a firearm should be protected (and I'm not saying it shouldn't be), but it's clearly not as simple as "my ball, my rules".

Edited January 17, 2016 by monkeylizard

[gunwhatgun]

So if I go into a store with a gunbuster and I get attacked by this guy they are responsible?? Awesome...

 

[nightrunner]

Except that it's not that plain and simple when it comes to a business open to the public. A business owner can't make his or her own rule that Hispanics aren't permitted, or that Jews aren't permitted, or that wheelchairs aren't permitted. I'm not saying that carrying a firearm should be protected (and I'm not saying it shouldn't be), but it's clearly not as simple as "my ball, my rules".

I understand your point. I don't agree with it as I don't agree that any one group of people should be "protected". Just how I feel but I don't expect our legal system to agree.

[leroy]

I'm the biggest pro 2nd Amendment guy you will find, but more than that I am pro Liberty, period. The 2nd Amendment doesn't trump property owners rights. If I don't like guns, I should be able to keep you from bringing them on my private property. And being a business open to the public does not exclude me from private property owners rights.

Now, that being said, it should be a simple trespassing charge after asking you to leave and you refuse, no more. Maybe for the sake of the safety of patrons, have a sign along the lines of, no weapons permitted, enter at your own risk.

I am not willing to give up property owners rights in exchange for 2A rights, it doesn't work like that. If you are on property that another man owns, you go by his rules plain and simple.

With all due respect... You ain't pro liberty, bro... You are pro "...im the boss here and you will do what i say..."

That aint liberty; that's tyranny... One person demanding that another do what he says or else...

 

That's ok; but with all that comes all them other responsibilities if you are in a business that is open to the public... Ya can't have it both ways... One "right" doesn't trump another "right"... They gotta be balanced unless you are a private citizen and i'm commin into your private residence or compound as an invited guest (...which i aint gonna do if you don't trust me with a firearm...)...

 

This proposal is a sensible attempt to balance the "right to self defense with a deadly weapon" against "property rights" in businesses open to the public; and i think it's high time some smart guy came up with this...Your mileage may vary...

 

leroy

[bersaguy]

Well, I began a list a long time ago of places I use to spend my hard earned money that went GUN BUSTER signage and I have not went back to any of them even though several have removed the signs. Once they realized they were costing them customers that is. Once I know their true feelings regarding my rights I will then express my rights by never doing business with them again. For every business with a sign posted, there are 10 stores that sell pretty much the same products without the signs...................jmho

[nightrunner]

With all due respect... You ain't pro liberty, bro... You are pro "...im the boss here and you will do what i say..."
That aint liberty; that's tyranny... One person demanding that another do what he says or else...

leroy

Liberty is the freedom to do whatever I please, as long as it doesn't infringe on your RIGHTS. You don't have a RIGHT to go to any place of business.

Say for example I own a restaurant that is well known to be the best of its type in a 100 mile radius. I also have a no guns sign on the door( replace "gun" with anything"). I ask anyone I see in my restaurant with one to leave. Or call and have the police escort them out with or without charges filed depending on their attitude. That's Liberty for property owners and how it should be. You don't have a RIGHT to come to my restaurant.

However, if there are enough people that like that type of restaurant and word gets around about how someone with a "gun" is treated, it creates a market for a gun friendly restaurant. Someone opens a restaurant right next door with the same amazing food and service, but they are also friendly and inviting to gun carrying patrons. And eventually my restaurant( the not gun friendly one), goes out of business or has much less business than the new one. This forces me to either accept a loss of profit while standing up for my beliefs, or to change my mind for the sake of money.

That is Liberty and the free market.

Tyranny is when someone in a position of power imposes their will on someone else, usually in government where they control critical functions, such as water supply, food production, waste management, entry into/ exit from the country, etc. Not always though, if I somehow had the only way of getting food in a place unable to farm then that would be tyranny but that's not the case in America.

[Spiffy]

If a business leaves an unsafe situation unaddressed and you get hurt (water on the floor that no one mops up) then you can sue them. I see no reason why gun free zones shouldn't be the same way.

[QuietDan]

Liberty is the freedom to do whatever I please, as long as it doesn't infringe on your RIGHTS. You don't have a RIGHT to go to any place of business.

Say for example I own a restaurant that is well known to be the best of its type in a 100 mile radius. I also have a no guns sign on the door( replace "gun" with anything"). I ask anyone I see in my restaurant with one to leave. Or call and have the police escort them out with or without charges filed depending on their attitude. That's Liberty for property owners and how it should be. You don't have a RIGHT to come to my restaurant.

However, if there are enough people that like that type of restaurant and word gets around about how someone with a "gun" is treated, it creates a market for a gun friendly restaurant. Someone opens a restaurant right next door with the same amazing food and service, but they are also friendly and inviting to gun carrying patrons. And eventually my restaurant( the not gun friendly one), goes out of business or has much less business than the new one. This forces me to either accept a loss of profit while standing up for my beliefs, or to change my mind for the sake of money.

That is Liberty and the free market.

Tyranny is when someone in a position of power imposes their will on someone else, usually in government where they control critical functions, such as water supply, food production, waste management, entry into/ exit from the country, etc. Not always though, if I somehow had the only way of getting food in a place unable to farm then that would be tyranny but that's not the case in America.

 

"Liberty is the freedom to do whatever I please, as long as it doesn't infringe on your RIGHTS." 

 

Small problem with that when it comes to the Second Amendment. We have an inherent right to defend our persons. Therefore, your property rights are trumped by my inherent, God-Given Right to Self Defense. Sorry. 

 

In the whole Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (Property), Life comes in First in every case. It's not possible to have Happiness (Property) or Liberty without Life.

Edited January 17, 2016 by QuietDan

[KahrMan]

"Liberty is the freedom to do whatever I please, as long as it doesn't infringe on your RIGHTS."

Small problem with that when it comes to the Second Amendment. We have an inherent right to defend our persons. Therefore, your property rights are trumped by my inherent, God-Given Right to Self Defense. Sorry.

In the whole Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (Property), Life comes in First in every case. It's not possible to have Happiness (Property) or Liberty without Life.

You do realize that the 2nd Admendment, or even the 1 Admendment, do not apply to private property or business, right? It only protects you from the government infringing those rights. You have no rights on private party except those allowed by the property owner.

[btq96r]

If a business leaves an unsafe situation unaddressed and you get hurt (water on the floor that no one mops up) then you can sue them. I see no reason why gun free zones shouldn't be the same way.

 

I think there's a difference between a situation a business creates from negligence or incompetence as in the water on the floor example, and a third party coming in and causing the harm.

[nightrunner]

"Liberty is the freedom to do whatever I please, as long as it doesn't infringe on your RIGHTS."

Small problem with that when it comes to the Second Amendment. We have an inherent right to defend our persons. Therefore, your property rights are trumped by my inherent, God-Given Right to Self Defense. Sorry.

In the whole Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (Property), Life comes in First in every case. It's not possible to have Happiness (Property) or Liberty without Life.

The thing is, is the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and if you read all of them, they are pertaining to the rights you as an individual have against the government, protect you from the government, not me.

To put in context, how does your right to protection from self incrimination apply to me? It doesn't, it applies to the government and their unjust legal system. How about not being forced to quarter soldiers in your home? Unless I form my own private army, it doesn't apply to me either. Same as your 2A rights or even your 1A rights don't apply to me on my private property. Edited January 18, 2016 by nightrunner

[nightrunner]

And just to further clarify for those who don't understand, the rules DO NOT CHANGE just because you are a business open to the public. It may be open to the public but it is still owned and operated by an individual.

[DaveTN]

Carrying a firearm in this state is a crime. Now they want legislation that holds a business owner responsible for not putting their stamp of approval on those the state deem worthy? Talk about a thug government. Sorry I can’t get onboard with that. And I’m pretty sure the courts won’t either.

[leroy]

What we've got here is a circular firing squad, along with circular reasoning, along with a dose of runnin off into a bunch of pasture fields that dont matter...

 

The fact is that the government (...local, state, and federal...) has seen fit to meddle in "property rights" for those engaged in public commerce... Whether anybody likes it or not, for better or worse, no one has changed that as yet...

 

If you are the proprietor of a business that serves public customers, the gubmt tells you lots of things and makes em stick with the force of law...

 

The gubmt tells you to have certain food standards (...if you are a resturant..), to have a certain size parking lot, to have restrooms meeting certain standards, defines insurance requirements, personnel requirements, fire code requirements; the list is endless... Friends, that is, in fact, gubmt meddlin and injecting requirements into your "public business"... The fact is that the gubmt in in the "business of regulating business"...

 

If the gubmt can demand that you be liable for some poor hapless soul (...your customer...) stepping on a wet noodle and breaking his butt and make it stick (...and they can... that's why you have insurance; which is mandated by gubmt...); what is the difference in it tellin you that you are responsible for the safety of your patrons should they be hurt as the result of your demand to take responsibility to disarm them and make them vulnerable to mayhem...?  We can quibble about whether gubmt should be meddlin in this or not; but the fact remains... They are and have been for a long time... 

 

I will grant that you can either be a "king in your castle" or a "tyrant"  (...my words and definition..."do what i say or else...) in your own home... Your home aint a public place... As others have pointed out; if you engage in a public business, the rules change... You may not like that; but that's how it works now; no matter the argument about "property rights" trumping everything else...

 

I say, if you want the "meddlin in business thing" to change, start workin on your elected reps and get to changin 'em... Good luck.... I predict that you'll need it...

 

leroy

[ken56]

If you see a gun buster sign on the door of a business and turn around and go back to your car and disarm and then continue to go back into said business then you have made a choice, a choice the business owner didn't FORCE you to make nor force you to continue to do business in his establishment. Nothing to do with denying you your rights. Their private property, their rules. With whom you do business is your choice. So to answer your question, they are not responsible for your safety. Only you are.

[Obiwan]

I wonder how quickly this proposed law could be nullified.

 

POSTED: Warning. This establishment prohibits firearms on its premises. By entering this establishment, you agree to hold the business owner and associates harmless of any liability and agree to waive any legal rights for recourse. Enter at your own risk.

 

(Dining here can have the following side-effects: Catching a cold, catching food-poisoning and/or ebola. Dinning can lead to nausea, illness, and/or death.)

 

Just like any other #$&^% contract/agreement/bill-of-sale/etc that disclaims... well... pretty much everything.

[monkeylizard]

Tyranny is when someone in a position of power imposes their will on someone else, usually in government where they control critical functions, such as water supply, food production, waste management, entry into/ exit from the country, etc. Not always though, if I somehow had the only way of getting food in a place unable to farm then that would be tyranny but that's not the case in America.

 

It was about a half-century ago in certain parts of our nation. It was exceedingly difficult for black citizens to travel through much of the South because hotels wouldn't allow them to stay. In a purely academic world, the free market would have corrected that by an enterprising person opening hotels that accepted black guests. But in the real world, he couldn't get the building permits or business license approved by the city/county. Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

What if you found yourself where no grocer would sell to a person of whatever your skin color is, or your religious persuasion, or why not the color of your hair? Not one within 200 miles. No other business will deal with you either. Think you'll move? Hope you have good friends because the U-Haul guy isn't renting a truck to you. Need to stop along the way for gas? Good luck. Going to complain to the local Sheriff? He's the grocer's brother. Besides, it's their right to deny you service, correct? Their property, their rules, and all.

 

Now change that around to where every business and government owned building is posted with a gunbuster for as far as the eye can see. Do you or do you not then have a 2nd amendment right to carry? On paper, sure...in the real world, no.

 

 

All that said, this whole proposed bill about liability if posted is utter crap. Just repeal 39-17-1359 and let's be done with it.

Edited January 18, 2016 by monkeylizard