Governor Signs Liability Bill for Gun Buster Sign Posters

[Just2Honor]

On 4/27/16 the Senate (SB 1736) and House (HB 29033) Bills were signed by the Governor making places not required by law to be posted liable for injuries to hand gun permit owners if injured because they could not defend themselves due to their posting of no guns allowed. 

 

Need to get the word out to posted places that they are now liable.   Maybe some of these businesses will now think twice about this

[Sidecarist]

Well that's interesting! One protecting the good guys (sort of).

[crossfire]

  :pleased: Here is a link if anyone wants to read the Bill.

It goes into effect July 1, 2016

Edited May 3, 2016 by crossfire

[Garufa]

  :pleased: Here is a link if anyone wants to read the Bill.

It goes into effect July 1, 2016

 

  https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB1736/id/1319932/Tennessee-2015-SB1736-Draft.pdf

 

That is not the bill that went into effect.

 

 

ON MARCH 16, 2016, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 1736, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 rewrites this bill to provide immunity from civil liability to a person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by positing under present law, with respect to any claim based on the person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt such a policy. This amendment will 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.

 

This is what was passed:  http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/SA0692.pdf

 

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1736

 

In other words don't anyone get too excited.

[JAB]

So, if I am reading the summary correctly, now in order for a posted sign to be legal it has to include language that refers to this bill?  This is the part I am talking about:

 

 

 

This bill requires that any person who posts their property to prohibit firearms on the premises must use a sign that includes language citing this bill and the duty of care that such person owes to permit holders.

 

We know that, basically, all this bill does is give a permit holder an avenue to bring a suit against the property owner.  It doesn't mean the permit holder would win and even such a suit could only be brought under certain, narrow conditions..  If the above clause is still in there, though, it could be a good thing in that:

 

1. Signs that don't refer to this bill probably aren't 'legal postings' -  which would mean that the simple 'circle and slash with a gun in it' and no verbage would no longer be a legal posting, right?  Because - according to this - a legal posting now has to have language citing this bill, etc.  Also... 

 

2. In attempting to post a truly legal sign the property owner will be made aware that he or she is potentially liable for any harm that comes to a permit holder on his or her premises which could have been defended against with a firearm had the permit holder be able to legally carry there.  Yes, Amendment #1 seems to have pretty much neutered the bill in reality but I'm thinking that all a potentially posting business owner will see is, "I might be liable if I don't allow HCP holders to carry guns and one of them is attacked while on my property."  I'm thinking about reports on here that there was a group of antis who were sending out or handing out circle/slash signs to business owners to try and get those owners to post.  If I am reading this correctly, that group or groups would now have to put language on the signs which business owners who aren't that 'up' on the issue either way will read as, "If I post I could be sued," which just might make them think twice.  Yeah, still not a great bill but maybe it will help more than we think (and probably more than the state legislature intended.)

 

Still, honestly, why don't they quit beating around the bush and making things more complicated when all they have to do is simply remove the weight of law from the stupid signs?  I guess that would just be too easy and not generate more business for the lawyers.  Also, if they were determined to take this route the bill should have also been worded so that it applied to employers who have employee policies which prohibit an employee who is an HCP holder from carrying at work - and requiring any business with such a policy to 'cite this bill and the duty of care that the employer owes to the permit holder employee' as part of that policy in the employee handbook.

Edited May 2, 2016 by JAB

[Dolomite_supafly]

I begged for this to happen at least 3 years ago, probably longer, so I am glad it has finally happened.

 

Here is a post of mine from 2012 regarding this.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/49841-legal-posting/page-2#entry780487

and another

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/35773-walgreens-fires-pharmacist-after-defending-himself-and-coworker-from-armed-robbery/#entry595960

and one from 2011

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/33796-tenn-measure-oks-guns-at-work/page-2#entry567008

[enfield]

What I see happening is that a lot of the gunbuster signs will remain up to pacify the antis and we can legally ignore them. Win-win.

[Oh Shoot]

So, if I am reading the summary correctly, now in order for a posted sign to be legal it has to include language that refers to this bill?  This is the part I am talking about:

 

Nope.

 

I begged for this to happen at least 3 years ago, probably longer, so I am glad it has finally happened.

 

Nope, you didn't get what you wanted.

 

What I see happening is that a lot of the gunbuster signs will remain up to pacify the antis and we can legally ignore them. Win-win.

 

Nope.

 

Didn't anyone read Garufa's post, and look at what actually passed?

 

It doesn't copy/paste nicely for me, and I don't have time to clean it up afterward, but again, THIS is what the guv signed:

 

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/SA0692.pdf

 

- OS

Edited May 2, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[300winmag]

Present law in 39-17-1359

 

(c)  (1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section.

   (2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).

 

 

Easy Fix

 

(c)(1) It is not a criminal offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is posted in accordance with this section, but may subject the person to denial to the building or property or removal from the building or property.

 

 

 

I can't believe that with so many politicians asleep at the wheel that the NRA can't get this one fixed for us with a quick 1-2 sentence revision after the NRA wasted time on the no gun sign law with this bill and another bill this year. 

 

You could fix the school gun law by adding the same sentence for people with permits and pacify the schools with giving them the ability to ask folks to leave with no criminal charges, but again I guess that is too difficult.

Edited May 2, 2016 by 300winmag

[enfield]

Never mind - the azzholes gutted it.

[Wingshooter]

That is not the bill that went into effect.
 
 

 
This is what was passed:  http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/SA0692.pdf
 
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1736
 
In other words don't anyone get too excited.

I kept thinking "this is too good to be true" when I read the OP. :(

[Worriedman]

Never mind - the azzholes gutted it.

Specifically Sen. Brian Kelsey and House Member Jon Lundberg, (currently running to fill Ron Ramsey's open seat in the Senate. Lundberg as a member of the House civil Justice sub committee killed more good gun bills with the assistance of Jim coley and Mike Carter than any other individuals in the General Assembly).

[GKar]

Here's the text of what actually passed (from Garufa's post).  Paper the bird cage with it.

 

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.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2016, the public welfare requiring it.

[Garufa]

I have read that gibberish at least 8 times and all I can come with is:

If an entity can post but does not, then they are immune from civil liability. Does that sound about right?

[Oh Shoot]

I have read that gibberish at least 8 times and all I can come with is:

If an entity can post but does not, then they are immune from civil liability. Does that sound about right?

 

That's the only interpretation I grok from it.

 

- OS

[Erik88]

I wish they would just drop the penalty for carrying past a sign. That was one of the perks about living in FL. They could only ask you to leave and if you refused then you could be arrested. I used to carry at the movie theater all the time even though it was posted.

[Danger Rane]

I have read that gibberish at least 8 times and all I can come with is:
If an entity can post but does not, then they are immune from civil liability. Does that sound about right?

That's more than what I can glean from it, as it's about as clear as mud. How is the common/reasonable man to follow the law when he can't even interpret what it says without a fricken law degree.

[Oh Shoot]

That's more than what I can glean from it, as it's about as clear as mud. How is the common/reasonable man to follow the law when he can't even interpret what it says without a fricken law degree.

 

It simply makes it clear that a biz that allows you to carry your gun can't be held liable when you shoot the joint up. :)

 

Seriously, really the opposite of original intent of the bill, where if you were disallowed to pack, biz could be held liable if a baddie hurt you.

 

- OS

[Randall53]

It simply makes it clear that a biz that allows you to carry your gun can't be held liable when you shoot the joint up. :)

 

Seriously, really the opposite of original intent of the bill, where if you were disallowed to pack, biz could be held liable if a baddie hurt you.

 

- OS

Bait and Switch. Write a bill to pacify the gun crowd, then turn the intent 180 degrees to make those that really own them happy. Their probably all sitting around laughing, drinking scotch and smoking cigars

[Hershmeister]

This is still good for gun owners as it removes the BS excuse that some businesses used to post so they "wouldn't be liable".

[Just2Honor]

Well damn.  Forget what I wrote in my original post.  Another meaningless gun bill.  Should have know the RINOs would do it again

[MacGyver]

This bill is simply one more piece of proof that this supermajority isn't good for anyone in the state of Tennessee.  Representatives should actually be required to work for their constituents and earn their votes...

[Dennis1209]

You know, maybe it's my senility and ignorance but... 

 

The courts / judicial system is suppose to interpret the law(s) and intent of the legislators imposing laws, am I so far correct in that assumption? 

 

If something is critical enough that a 'law' needs to be passed, you would think it would be written crystal clear with examples if needed so there's no mistake of the intent, application and coverage? Sort of like good parenting skills and management style. Seems to this old fart if a little more communication, attention to detail and clarity were applied to their thoughts and legislation, fewer loop holes could be found to argue about and clog the court systems? 

 

One reason you need to be a lawyer to understand the law is 'words'. The dictionary definition of many 'words' in legislation is totally different than common usage and meanings, why? Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

[JAB]

It doesn't copy/paste nicely for me, and I don't have time to clean it up afterward, but again, THIS is what the guv signed:

 

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/SA0692.pdf

 

- OS

 

Well, crap.  I read the amendment but didn't realize it had replaced everything else in the bill, including the part about 'language' on the sign.  Great.  But, hey, let's all be sure to vote Republican because they are on our side!  What's that?  We got more pro-gun and pro-self defense legislation passed under a Democratic regime with Naifeh as Speaker because the Republicans were trying to con us into believeing that a Republican majority with a Republican governor would be better 'prove' themselves?  Now, now, stop looking at the man behind the curtain, already!

 

Man, I'm sick of these pukes.

Edited May 3, 2016 by JAB

[300winmag]

At one point in this part of the country, the Democratic primaries were basically the election because no Republican would ever get elected.  A lot of these republicans are really just lite democrats that switched parties.  They just join the republican party because they have to in order to get elected, especially after obamacare has made the democratic party unpopular in most of Tennessee. 

 

Many of these republicans never cared much for gun rights and will only vote for a highly restrictive/no real world change gun bill in an election year so they get NRA brownie points and appear to be 'standing up' to Obama.

Edited May 3, 2016 by 300winmag