1. 2aHawaii
  2. General Topics
  3. Legal and Activism
  4. Liability for Gun Free Zones
Print
Pages: [1]

Liability for Gun Free Zones (Read 7674 times)

HiCarry

Liability for Gun Free Zones
« on: June 29, 2016, 11:34:17 AM »
Tennessee will have, effective 1 July 2016, a law that allows anyone authorized to carry a concealed firearm, and who was disarmed and subsequently harmed, to sue the property owner.

Way to go Tennessee!!

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/28/want-a-gun-free-zone-tennessee-says-thats-on-you-literally/
Logged

eyeeatingfish

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2016, 11:49:50 AM »
I am assuming government agencies would get a pass. What about liquor establishments? Banks?

Not sure I agree with this one. It basically brings into question whether a property owner has a right to control their own property.

Although, if you denied my my right to my asthma medication, for example, then I would say you were liable if I had an attack and couldn't medicate myself as needed.
Logged

HiCarry

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2016, 11:58:43 AM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on June 29, 2016, 11:49:50 AM
I am assuming government agencies would get a pass. What about liquor establishments? Banks?

Not sure I agree with this one. It basically brings into question whether a property owner has a right to control their own property.

Although, if you denied my my right to my asthma medication, for example, then I would say you were liable if I had an attack and couldn't medicate myself as needed.

I know what you know if you read the article. Have questions? Research it.

It would not deny a property owner their rights to control their property, just recognize the fact that self-defense is a natural right and that any attempt to restrict that right comes with the assumption of the legal obligation to protect the invitee and assume the liability if they didn't take appropriate safeguards. It's not a whole lot different  from the current laws requiring property owners to keep their property free from recognized hazards and to provide aid in the event of an injury. Do these current mandates adversely affect a property owner's right to control their property?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 01:23:38 PM by HiCarry »
Logged

aieahound

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2016, 12:08:12 PM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on June 29, 2016, 11:49:50 AM
I am assuming government agencies would get a pass. What about liquor establishments? Banks?

Not sure I agree with this one. It basically brings into question whether a property owner has a right to control their own property.

Although, if you denied my my right to my asthma medication, for example, then I would say you were liable if I had an attack and couldn't medicate myself as needed.

EEF you're sidetracking again and arguing against yourself.
Bars right to self-defense, not liable.
Bars ability to self-medication, liable.
Both possibly essential to your personal safety.

Potato, Potahto.

Quote from: HiCarry on June 29, 2016, 11:34:17 AM
Way to go Tennessee !
+1
Logged

Heavies

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2016, 12:20:14 PM »
Good for them and I agree.

I predict less mass shootings and less crime in tenn.
Logged

punaperson

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2016, 01:33:54 PM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on June 29, 2016, 11:49:50 AM
Not sure I agree with this one.
When I read that you coulda knocked me over with a feather!

 :stopjack:
Logged

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2016, 02:26:51 PM »
Quote from: punaperson on June 29, 2016, 01:33:54 PM
When I read that you coulda knocked me over with a feather!

 :stopjack:

Logged
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

ren

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2016, 02:36:12 PM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on June 29, 2016, 11:49:50 AM
Not sure I agree with this one.

The Surefire Warcomp is one helluva flash suppressor err I mean compensator...or is both?
Logged
Deeds Not Words

suka

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2016, 06:10:48 PM »
Ive open carried into a Bank, No sign outside that said NO FIREARMS.

Nobody even blinked or looked at me. Business as usual.

But Post Offices are a strict NONO....


Logged

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2016, 06:19:22 PM »
Quote from: suka on June 29, 2016, 06:10:48 PM
Ive open carried into a Bank, No sign outside that said NO FIREARMS.

Nobody even blinked or looked at me. Business as usual.

But Post Offices are a strict NONO....

The 1986 post office shooting in Edmond, OK, was the beginning of contemporary workplace shootings resulting in mass murder.  That event coined the popular phrase "going postal".  14 dead + shooter by suicide, 6 injured.

There were several other post office shootings that followed.  The "gun free zone" rules were made in response.

Logged
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

eyeeatingfish

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2016, 10:24:42 PM »
Quote from: HiCarry on June 29, 2016, 11:58:43 AM
I know what you know if you read the article. Have questions? Research it.

It would not deny a property owner their rights to control their property, just recognize the fact that self-defense is a natural right and that any attempt to restrict that right comes with the assumption of the legal obligation to protect the invitee and assume the liability if they didn't take appropriate safeguards. It's not a whole lot different  from the current laws requiring property owners to keep their property free from recognized hazards and to provide aid in the event of an injury. Do these current mandates adversely affect a property owner's right to control their property?

I meant those questions as rhetorical points to think about on this issue, I wasn't asking you to go out and find more information.

The most interesting issue for me is in what right people have to control their own property. You make a good point about keeping your property free from hazards but I think we have certainly seen this taken to an extreme where people sue for outrageous things so it cuts both ways. I am trying to envision what negative repercussions could come of this law. I support concealed carry but I am not going to jump on this bandwagon without thinking it through.

A business might also be concerned about liability if they let someone carry concealed and something bad happens so this could put them between a rock and a hard place.
Logged

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2016, 11:12:04 PM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on June 29, 2016, 10:24:42 PM
I meant those questions as rhetorical points to think about on this issue, I wasn't asking you to go out and find more information.

The most interesting issue for me is in what right people have to control their own property. You make a good point about keeping your property free from hazards but I think we have certainly seen this taken to an extreme where people sue for outrageous things so it cuts both ways. I am trying to envision what negative repercussions could come of this law. I support concealed carry but I am not going to jump on this bandwagon without thinking it through.

A business might also be concerned about liability if they let someone carry concealed and something bad happens so this could put them between a rock and a hard place.

1.  People who legally carry concealed are not the threat. 

2.  Bad guys carry illegally.  They will ignore the signs and bring their guns, especially if they know the rest of the place will be disarmed.

3.  What kind of liability does the store face for not having metal detectors, armed guards, security cameras every 3 feet, doors that can be locked down if they see a problem approaching outside, or panic buttons to summon police?  WHY ARE THE UNCONTROLLABLE ACTIONS OF LEGAL CONCEALED WEAPONS CARRIERS THE ONLY RISK YOU WORRY ABOUT?

4.  Why is everyone not required to walk, take a cab, be dropped off by someone, or have a designated driver?  Why are their car keys not confiscated upon entry so an employee can decide if the patron is sober to drive?  Restaurants and bars have been sued for liability in over-intoxication leading to crashes and deaths on the road.

Carrying concealed doesn't lead to "bad things.  It's usually the concealed carriers who stop the bad things before they get too far out of hand.  If the place wants to protect the customers, they should hire a couple of cops to provide security if it's that rowdy of a place -- CCW or not!

There comes a point where you either treat all people as adults, or you close up shop because you can't trust everyone not to bankrupt you with liability lawsuits.
Logged
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Liability for Gun Free Zones
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2016, 11:22:31 PM »
Louisiana Restaurant Offers Discount for Carrying Gun


Logged
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
Print
Pages: [1]
« previous next »