HB2033 / SB 1736 No Gun Sign Liability Bill

[300winmag]

This bill has made it past the Senate Committee.  The bill seems to have good intentions as far as trying to add civil liability protections to businesses that do not put up no gun signs.  The fact is, we just need a simple bill to remove the criminal penalty.  If any of you are represented by or know the sponsors of this bill, you might want to see if they will just remove the no gun sign criminal penalty as a part of the bill.

[Worriedman]

Afraid that would be outside the caption of the bill.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Worriedman

[xsubsailor]

I actually think this is better. We'll be seeing fewer signs if the business knows they are going to be liable. 

[Obiwan]

SB1736/HB2033:  http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1736&GA=109

 

Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, establishes that if a person or entity posts to prohibit the possession of firearms on the property, the posting entity, for purposes of liability, assumes custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any handgun carry permit holder harmed while on the posted property. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

 

SB1736 by Gresham - SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 
Recommended for passage with amendment/s, refer to Senate Calendar Committee Ayes 6, Nays 2 PNV 1 3/8/2016 
Passed
          Ayes................................................6
          Noes................................................2
          Present and not voting...................1

          Senators voting aye were: Stevens, Roberts, Kelsey, Gardenhire, Bowling, Bell -- 6.
          Senators voting no were: Kyle, Harris -- 2.
          Senators present and not voting were: Overbey -- 1.

[GKar]

Seems to me that the amendment pretty much neuters the bill (or at least significantly dilutes the intent):  http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/SA0692.pdf

 

SECTION 1.

Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by adding the following as a new section:

(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting,

pursuant to §39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to §39-17-1359.

(b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

[300winmag]

It seems to be more of a political bill than a practical bill that actually helps people with permits.

[Obiwan]

"[...]shall be immune from civil liability[...]based on[...]failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property[...]" 

 

I'm not a lawyer, but to me that reads like a business can't be sued because they do allow weapons on the property. It limits the liability to those cases where a business does restrict weapons (by posting) and bad stuff happens. If a business is posted and a shooter causes damage or harm, it's open to be sued (presumably by those denied to bring their defensive weapons on property). But if a business is not posted and a shooter causes damage or harm, then it can not be held liable because it didn't restrict weapons by posting.

[GKar]

Yes, that's the old "carrot on a stick" idea that the TN GA has kicked around the curb since at last 2009 (maybe before) in numerous summer study sessions.  Guess they finally felt they had to trot out this indirect/persuasion method in lieu of actually having some 'nads...I seriously do not see a single business being persuaded by this carrot, given the load of bilge they've already been fed by their internal legal consultants/departments and the Chamber's hired manure-shovelers.

[300winmag]

That bill probably will probably not change anything.  The time spent on this bill would have been better spent on a bill to actually improve things.  You only get so many opportunities a year for pro gun bills.

[Worriedman]

That bill probably will probably not change anything.  The time spent on this bill would have been better spent on a bill to actually improve things.  You only get so many opportunities a year for pro gun bills.

You get none (opportunities) that do not benefit Leadership.  

Current Leadership must be changed to change any of the limits currently placed on your Rights.

[cybernorris]

Is this one going into effect in an hour?

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, cybernorris said:

Is this one going into effect in an hour?

What this law does is ensure no liability from the decision to NOT post the property. Up to date thread just below:

 

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[300winmag]

We need something like this to replace the no gun sign law in Tennessee.  This strikes a great balance between property rights and gun rights.  We need to make this a high priority next legislative session.  

Oklahoma

D. The carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person who has been issued a handgun license on property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall not be deemed a criminal act but may subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property. If the person refuses to leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).

Edited July 1, 2016 by 300winmag