Landmark Bill: Property Owners to Bear
Liability for Injuries in Gun-Free Zones

A new Georgia bill would make property owners liable if a lawful concealed
carry permit holder is harmed while barred from being armed on their property.

House Bill 1364 allows legal gun owners who are prohibited from carrying on
private property and subsequently injured to sue the landowner.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/landmark-bill-property-owners-to-bear-liability-for-injuries-in-gun-free-zones/ar-BB1jl8Ky

I guess if the threat of civil and financial liability is significant enough, the property owners will choose to make their properties gun-friendly zones instead.

And, the owners who refuse will either close their doors or, God forbid, be sued out of existence should a patron be killed or injured on the premises.

Giving family members the right to sue after a loved one is killed will not bring them back, but at least it's better than the illogical status quo now.  Rational people agree that if a business has a policy that causes harm, they should be held liable for that.  Gun free zones should not be an exception.

Ooh, that's interesting. Rhoads head would explode if another senator proposed that.

we should at least work with our legislators to draft one for 2025. We need to.

Interesting idea, I doubt it will stand up to legal challenge but still an interesting idea.

I see a purpose for it, but I'm hesitant due to property owner rights and a person doesn't have to be there.  Maybe in limited circumstances.

There's a better case when it comes to government properties as sometimes you have no choice and have to be there.

I see a purpose for it, but I'm hesitant due to property owner rights and a person doesn't have to be there.  Maybe in limited circumstances.

There's a better case when it comes to government properties as sometimes you have no choice and have to be there.

So if you go into a store and slip on a puddle of spilled liquid, you don't think you should have the right to sue because of "property owner rights?"

No matter what property you own, opening it up to the public also opens you up to civil action if someone is injured.  It's why businesses carry large liability insurance policies.

Choosing to have a gun free zone is still their right.  It just makes disarming people on par with failing to maintain a safe, clean place to walk in terms of being liable should someone be injured.  They can have all the mitigating measures they want, too:  metal detectors, armed guards, surveillance cameras monitored by security personnel, locked entrances requiring someone let you in, and so on.

If you're going to deprive someone of the right to defend themselves, then you have an even greater responsibility to ensure that someone is as safe as possible.  That's my opinon anyway.

It's not only while in their business, but also where you go the rest of the day if disarmed because you cannot leave your gun in the car (if it's not legal to do so).  Or at most, something happens while you're walking to your car, which has your firearm in it.

I hope this passes and wins when challenged in court.

Like Flap said, they are responsible if I slip on an uncleaned wet spot. Or if they're found negligent if something falls on me.  So getting hurt in a store because one is unable to defend themselves with the best tool should be no different.

It's not only while in their business, but also where you go the rest of the day if disarmed because you cannot leave your gun in the car (if it's not legal to do so).  Or at most, something happens while you're walking to your car, which has your firearm in it.

I hope this passes and wins when challenged in court.

Like Flap said, they are responsible if I slip on an uncleaned wet spot. Or if they're found negligent if something falls on me.  So getting hurt in a store because one is unable to defend themselves with the best tool should be no different.

Then there's the "vote with your wallet" approach.  if one restaurant is gun free and there are others who aren't, you have the option to spend your money at the places which don't violate your beliefs or rights no matter which side of the issue you're on.

Then there's the "vote with your wallet" approach.  if one restaurant is gun free and there are others who aren't, you have the option to spend your money at the places which don't violate your beliefs or rights no matter which side of the issue you're on.

I try to do that as well.

State and County that declare "sensitive places" and thereby prohibit carrying firearms for self defense should also be liable for the safety of whoever is on the premises.

We should be able to sue them.

State and County that declare "sensitive places" and thereby prohibit carrying firearms for self defense should also be liable for the safety of whoever is on the premises.

We should be able to sue them.

But in Hawaii, we get da Aloha Spirit.  Az why no need carry gun.

But in Hawaii, we get da Aloha Spirit.  Az why no need carry gun.

Ah, yes.  The bastardization of a genuine concept by corrupt, self-serving, bullsh*t, two-faced, greedy, bought and paid-for politicians, LE, and their bureaucratic cronies in the justice system.

I see a purpose for it, but I'm hesitant due to property owner rights and a person doesn't have to be there.  Maybe in limited circumstances.

There's a better case when it comes to government properties as sometimes you have no choice and have to be there.

This made me think about the Christian cake bakers. A store owner could say that guns are against his religion. I think it could create a lot of unintended precedent.

If a bank bans medical masks can you sue them if you catch a cold at a bank? (for example)

This made me think about the Christian cake bakers. A store owner could say that guns are against his religion. I think it could create a lot of unintended precedent.

If a bank bans medical masks can you sue them if you catch a cold at a bank? (for example)

Typical bad example. You're trying to create a problem where there isn't one.

This made me think about the Christian cake bakers. A store owner could say that guns are against his religion. I think it could create a lot of unintended precedent.

If a bank bans medical masks can you sue them if you catch a cold at a bank? (for example)

You should do all your banking online or ask for special accommodations.  If you knowingly follow policies and rules knowing you are putting yourself at risk, and there are alternatives, then you bear some of the responsibility if you're injured.

That's partly why I said to vote with your wallet.  If you disarm yourself by choosing to go to a gun free business, that's your choice -- isn't it?

Banks are no different.  Switch banks, use their online and phone services, or ask for a medical exemption for masks.  Sheeple would accept the risks because they feel they have no other choice.

The Christian cake baker is a totally irrelevant situation.  The reason for his gun free zone doesn't matter.  Whether his reason is religion, his dog was shot in a hunting accident, his wife is a better shot than he is, or loud noises make him curl up in the fetal position, it all has the same end result:  disarming his customers.  He's free to have that policy in his store, but he can't get immunity from liability simply because he claims religious beliefs.  He needs to get insurance and implement additional safety measures for his clientele, or he's risking losing his business if something bad happens.

It's no different than if he sprinkles holy water at the entrance to bless his customers when they enter, and someone slips on the water and gets hurt.  The accident was foreseeable, and religious beliefs can't shield him from the consequences.

As for baking cakes for Gay weddings, go read the decision.  He didn't prevail on the argument that he can run his business however his religious beliefs guide him.  Rather, the NATURE of his cake decorating was deemed "a creative process," and he was being forced to use his creativity and skill to make a cake that supported something he did not think was right. 

Making a store a gun free zone has zero to do with creativity or skill.

HPD can carry wherever they want...

You should do all your banking online or ask for special accommodations.  If you knowingly follow policies and rules knowing you are putting yourself at risk, and there are alternatives, then you bear some of the responsibility if you're injured.

That's partly why I said to vote with your wallet.  If you disarm yourself by choosing to go to a gun free business, that's your choice -- isn't it?

Banks are no different.  Switch banks, use their online and phone services, or ask for a medical exemption for masks.  Sheeple would accept the risks because they feel they have no other choice.

The Christian cake baker is a totally irrelevant situation.  The reason for his gun free zone doesn't matter.  Whether his reason is religion, his dog was shot in a hunting accident, his wife is a better shot than he is, or loud noises make him curl up in the fetal position, it all has the same end result:  disarming his customers.  He's free to have that policy in his store, but he can't get immunity from liability simply because he claims religious beliefs.  He needs to get insurance and implement additional safety measures for his clientele, or he's risking losing his business if something bad happens.

It's no different than if he sprinkles holy water at the entrance to bless his customers when they enter, and someone slips on the water and gets hurt.  The accident was foreseeable, and religious beliefs can't shield him from the consequences.

As for baking cakes for Gay weddings, go read the decision.  He didn't prevail on the argument that he can run his business however his religious beliefs guide him.  Rather, the NATURE of his cake decorating was deemed "a creative process," and he was being forced to use his creativity and skill to make a cake that supported something he did not think was right. 

Making a store a gun free zone has zero to do with creativity or skill.

"It's no different than if he sprinkles holy water at the entrance to bless his customers when they enter,"

But if an atheist/muslim walks in and gets "sprinkled", isn't that a violation of their unreligious/religious rights and he can't get immunity from liability simply because he claims religious beliefs? 

HPD can carry wherever they want...

Another excemption, besides owning certain parts.

But if an atheist/muslim walks in and gets "sprinkled", isn't that a violation of their unreligious/religious rights and he can't get immunity from liability simply because he claims religious beliefs? 

If someone sprinkles holy water and you take offense, you are admitting you also believe the water is blessed.  Otherwise, you wouldn't make a stink over it.

A smart atheist/Muslim would smile or laugh and ignore it -- until they slipped and fell!