A step in the right direction

[ZA_Survivalist]

Want a Gun-Free Zone? Tennessee Says That's on You: LITERALLY (http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/28/want-a-gun-free-zone-tennessee-says-thats-on-you-literally/)

Gentlemen, your thoughts?
Sorry if this is a double post.

Read More

 

[d2the3]

Sound reasonable to me, except the article doesn't say how they get hurt or suffer bodily injury or die. I assume they mean by physical attack or gun shot wound? Hopefully the bill is worded better than the article is.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I can also see how this would be misused and abused, BUT it would finally be a proactive approach to holding bigoted policies and companies who adopt them liable. A little harassment of our own fed back to them (antis) for once.

 

[Ura-Ki]

All ready destroyed that new law! Read the updates! Was good while it lasted, maybe thy can challenge it to revert to the original language and remove the added amendment that screwed it up!

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

All ready destroyed that new law! Read the updates! Was good while it lasted, maybe thy can challenge it to revert to the original language and remove the added amendment that screwed it up!

Bummer. Just saw multipul posts this morning about it, sucks that its not in action. Id love to see something like in action.

 

[PaulB47]

I don't think one right is supported by trampling another (private property). The proper response to a "no guns" sign on a business is to take your business elsewhere (along with telling the owner why). No need to involve government in this at all.

 

[mkwerx]

It's not so much trampling private property rights - but it is the idea that IF a private property owner is going to suspend your right of defending yourself IE - a no weapons policy - THEY become legally liable for your safety and protection, and if you are injured because you obeyed their no weapons policy, and could've adequately defended yourself had you been armed, you have legal recourse. The private property owners can still put no weapons policies in order -but the idea behind the law was to make those said private property owners think about all the consequences of such decisions, instead of applying blanket bans with no recrimination should thinks break bad. The government gets involved only to the extent that they recognize and affirm the civil liability of the property owners that choose to make their guests/customers defenseless.

I can likewise see the benefit of legal protections for private property owners that do NOT ban weapons - actually that makes a bit more sense to me, because it gives said property owners the same pause to think about the policies they enact on their property. You ban guns - you're still open to civil suit - if you do NOT ban guns, you get immunity from civil suit from folks injured/killed - they had the opportunity to protect themselves and didn't, not your fault they came unprepared, right? It puts the onus not just on the property owner, but the people entering said property and affirming that YOU are ultimately responsible for your safety and security and that you shan't rely upon others for your protection.

 

[decklin]

I don't have a problem with private property owners being liable for their decision.
Yes, you can take your money and gun elsewhere. Maybe.
There are plenty of people that find themselves driving an extraordinarily long time to find a business that supports the 2A.
Why should I have to drive an extra 20 minutes to practice a legal activity so someone can "feel safe"?

 

[Koda]

I don't think one right is supported by trampling another (private property). The proper response to a "no guns" sign on a business is to take your business elsewhere (along with telling the owner why). No need to involve government in this at all.

until the ccw community is the majority (not gonna happen) the proper response is to not make the signage legal in the first place. No one is trampling anyones property rights when they shop in a store open to the public concealed.

 

[PaulB47]

IF a private property owner is going to suspend your right of defending yourself IE - a no weapons policy - THEY become legally liable for your safety and protection

Sorry, that is complete, utter BS. Consider this quote by Jefferson:
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

The law can say anything, and often is pure tyranny. But morally, any business owner or any other property owner is perfectly within his rights to set any conditions he pleases for entry into his property - if the word "property" is to have any meaning. The instant you enter it, you have implicitly agreed to his conditions, and if you later are harmed, then it is on you, not on him. If you really object, then don't enter his property. Try taking some responsibility for yourself!

It's amazing how few people understand liberty. People here complain so much about losing it, then make such basic mistakes about it. No wonder it is going away.

 

[mkwerx]

With liberty comes responsibility - a black and white view that one person's liberty trumps another without consequence is madness. It is one thing for someone to say that strangers, or anyone for that matter, shall not bring weapons into their homes. It is quite another though, to say that a business open to the public may suspend another's god given rights without consequence. The liberty of an individual trumps the liberty of a corporate entity, or it should. To put ALL of the responsibility onto the individual, then turn around and say "don't like it, tough" in say, a situation where a store owner doesn't want customers bringing weapons into the store - yet then wishes to be held harmless in the event the customer suffers injury or death as a direct result of obeying the wishes of the business - is what is BS. If you open your property up to others - either to the general public, or even to members or private guests - then either you grant them permission to defend themselves and bring with them the necessary tools to do such, or you DO accept responsibility and liability for their safety and security while they are upon your property. You have the liberty to make whatever rules you wish for your property, but you have a responsibility to make reasonable rules, or provide complete security and to compensate me for any damage or loss I incur while in your care. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, THAT is an irrational view point that benefits only a handful of people, and tramples upon individual liberty at every turn.

It is further the individual's responsibility to act in a socially acceptable manner and to be reasonable with any hosts, and it is their responsibility to prepare for their own safety and security, and to flatly ignore any law or policy of private property that would encumber or interfere with said safety. Yes, you have a choice of places to go - but it is completely unreasonable to say that someone should not be able to conduct their daily lives while being armed because every business or individual they deal with wishes for them to be disarmed. It is completely unreasonable to say that the person should have to travel the better part of a day to do business with people who respect their rights and don't wish to needlessly encumber them.

Your property rights don't supersede my right to be whole in my person.

It is completely unreasonable to say that if a person lives in a town, and the only general store or supermarket has a no weapons policy, that they should abide by it, or drive 50+ miles to the nearest town that has a store that does not have a no weapons policy. It is completely unreasonable to say that you should be disarmed just to see a doctor - I have yet to enter any medical clinic, hospital, or office that doesn't have this stupid policy in effect. I ignore it every time, because not a single one of these places has armed guards, metal detectors, and security doors in place. Until they take my safety seriously, they have no place dictating to me how I may defend myself.

With rights come responsibility - you cannot have one without the other, and I will always side with individual liberty and freedom before corporate liberty and freedom - corporations are not people, despite what a bunch of idiots in black robes dictate.

 

[Stomper]

If they can force a business to make a gay wedding cake against their religious beliefs (there's no bill of rights that specifically enumerates a right to a gay wedding cake), then they can force a business to honor an enumerated personal civil right.

 

[PaulB47]

Both are wrong. But yeah, the word "force" here, is what is going on. "Might makes right" after all...

It is quite another though, to say that a business open to the public may suspend another's god given rights without consequence.

Sorry, who is doing the suspending? It is the patron who enters the property, signaling his agreement with the requirements of the vendor. He can go elsewhere if he doesn't agree.

People have a "right" of free speech. That does not mean you can say anything you want when you enter another's property.

The liberty of an individual trumps the liberty of a corporate entity, or it should.

So, you agree with me when it is a sole proprietorship?

If you open your property up to others - either to the general public, or even to members or private guests - then either you grant them permission to defend themselves and bring with them the necessary tools to do such, or you DO accept responsibility and liability for their safety and security while they are upon your property. You have the liberty to make whatever rules you wish for your property, but you have a responsibility to make reasonable rules, or provide complete security and to compensate me for any damage or loss I incur while in your care.

Yes, I'm well aware that people prefer to shuffle responsibility off on others, rather than keeping it where it belongs, with themselves. Still the fact remains, you enter someone's property, you follow his rules. Don't like his rules, don't enter his property! That's personal responsibility.

Can you imagine someone like Jefferson making an argument like the one you are making? I sure can't.

It is completely unreasonable to say that if a person lives in a town, and the only general store or supermarket has a no weapons policy, that they should abide by it, or drive 50+ miles to the nearest town that has a store that does not have a no weapons policy.

I guess that is what people mean when they say "freedom isn't free". Yes, we are inconvenienced at times. But usually not to the extent you mention here. Maybe it's just another store down the street.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
- Thomas Paine

That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly.
- Thomas Paine

 

[Koda]

yeah, we get it but I dont think anyone here is unsupportive of property rights. If a buisness owner wants to ask every customer if they are armed they have that right too and then I will happily drive 50 miles to the next store but until then Im not disrespecting anyones property right when they open up their property to the public.

 

[PaulB47]

Im not disrespecting anyones property right when they open up their property to the public.

Keep in mind this is the justification that government supremacists use when telling bakers they have to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Opening your property to the public does not imply you cannot have rules for entry into the property (although the government would like you to think it does).

 

[Koda]

Keep in mind this is the justification that government supremacists use when telling bakers they have to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Opening your property to the public does not imply you cannot have rules for entry into the property (although the government would like you to think it does).

not even a close comparison, nobody is suggesting the armed citizen demand to stay when asked to leave the property. In this context, the property owner is not asking anyone if they are armed....

 

[albin25]

The whole cake flap was over forcing someone to produce a product they didn't want to produce with no legal way to avoid producing it, should the request be in some way offensive to the shop's owners exercise of their religious or free association rights at the expense of someone else's free expression.

This proposed law merely requires that if you want to strip someone's 2nd amendment rights to self defense by denying their right to bear arms on your commercial property, you can do so, as long as you agree to either provide armed security for the customers you've dis-armed or accept your liability for not allowing your customers to provide their own self defense should your stupid signs be deemed insufficient when a bad guy ignores them and something bad happens.

My problem is the un-intended consequences of such a law... The cost of the liability insurance is not going to add much to a business's already in place liability policy (a customer needing his gun is after all very, very much rarer than slips, falls, burns, employee negligence, etc...). The probable low cost of adding a "Failure to Provide Adequate Security Rider" to a business' existing policy could perhaps be more of an incentive to post themselves as "gun free" than to not.

I would tend to look more at using Consumer Fraud Laws to require that if
a business posts signs (advertises) as a "GUN FREE ZONE"...it better actually be GUN FREE as advertised. Therefore all entrances to "posted" areas must have security searches and TSA style entrances or some other proven effective way to ensure "purity" so that even the bad guys that ignore signs and rules, won't have guns either.

Treat GUN FREE as if it was GLUTEN FREE or FAT FREE or PEANUT FREE.
Otherwise you're not providing what you say you are and that is fraud.

 

[PaulB47]

This proposed law merely requires that if you want to strip someone's 2nd amendment rights to self defense by denying their right to bear arms on your commercial property, you can do so, as long as you agree to either provide armed security for the customers you've dis-armed or accept your liability for not allowing your customers to provide their own self defense should your stupid signs be deemed insufficient when a bad guy ignores them and something bad happens.

"Merely requires" is an oxymoron. There is nothing "mere" about having a gun put to your head. All government regulation is backed up by violence.

I thought people figured out requiring the purchase of insurance was tyranny, after Obamacare. Apparently not...

That is my problem with this law. It tramples liberty (people doing what they please) while transferring personal responsibility away from where it belongs, the customer. If the customer does not agree with the owner's policy, he should move down the road, rather than begging government (like a good little slave) to impose on people. Anyone who sued the owner in court because some criminal attacked him in that owner's shop, should have the suit thrown out by the judge, because he agreed to being disarmed by coming in the shop. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Your position is similar to the gun banners who wanted to sue gun manufacturers for their supposed responsibility in causing crime.

Presumably, a store owner would have a "no guns" policy to serve that portion of the market who do not like guns. If he wants to do that, it's his business, not yours. It's irrelevant that that portion of the customer base are being irrational about guns.

One either supports liberty, or not. This is hostile to the concept of liberty, a pig with pro-gun makeup on.

 

[Koda]

That is my problem with this law. It tramples liberty (people doing what they please) while transferring personal responsibility away from where it belongs, the customer. If the customer does not agree with the owner's policy, he should move down the road, rather than begging government (like a good little slave) to impose on people. Anyone who sued the owner in court because some criminal attacked him in that owner's shop, should have the suit thrown out by the judge, because he agreed to being disarmed by coming in the shop. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

this is why the solution to this issue is to simply not pass signage laws.

 

[David Bowman]

They can post all the signs they want; I will just carry anyway.