Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60

Thread: SB 1736 Lets Gun Owners Sue GFZ Owners

  1. #1
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    537

    SB 1736 Lets Gun Owners Sue GFZ Owners

    Holy crap! Somerville, you guys have a brilliant senator!

    http://www.youngcons.com/new-bill-in...-zones-to-sue/

    The legislation places responsibility on the business or property owner of the gun-free area to protect the gun owner from any incidents that occur with any “invitees,” trespassers and employees found on the property, as well as vicious and wild animals and “defensible man-made and natural hazards."
    TN Gov Site Link to SB 1736

    This is out-damn-standing!
    Last edited by DeSchaine; 01-25-2016 at 11:37 AM.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Cookeville TN
    Posts
    30

    Good news everyone!

    That is going to be fantastic. I know I will be printing it off and delivering it to every posted business I find come july. I have a feeling that once they realize they will be legally liable, a lot of those ridiculous signs will be coming down -very- quickly.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    I don't think you need this law to establish liability myself.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,110
    Bad idea.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Englewood, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    656

    Great Idea

    If this passes, it is a great idea.

    I believe in property rights for "Private Property", so if I am on my personal property then I should be able to do just about anything I want.

    But if I own a business..."THAT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC", I should already know that the "PUBLIC" will be coming into my business, and some of them might do or bring things I don't like.

    But my business is "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC", so as long as my customers are not violating and safety issues, or breaking the law in any way, I need to accept that this might happen.


    I can sue a business if I slip and fall on a wet floor...because the business didn't take the correct steps to keep me safe... so why shouldn't I be able to sue them if they denied my right to protect myself with my personal sidearm.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,110
    39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings -- Posting notice.

    (a)(1) Except as provided in 39-17-1313, an individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.
    (a) It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property.
    This is a effort to diminish private property rights.

    (b) Any person or entity authorized to post property pursuant to 39-17-1359 who elects, pursuant to that authority, to prohibit the possession of firearms by a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to 39-17-1351, thereby assumes absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of the permit holder while on the posted property and while on any property the permit holder is required to traverse in order to travel to and from the location where the permit holder's firearm is stored.

    (c) The responsibility of the person or entity posting for the safety and defense of the permit holder shall extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.
    1. What is the definition of custodial responsibility and how much control does the property owner have over invitees.

    2. Shared parking lots? Shared multilevel parking structures? Malls?

    This is a effort to diminish private property rights.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    This is a effort to diminish private property rights.

    ....

    This is a effort to diminish private property rights.
    This is an effort to properly balance a business owner's private property rights with the individual customers' rights to life and limb.

    It took legislation to firmly establish the duty for business owners to provide proper fire escapes and other modest safety measures such as maximum occupancy and building codes.

    This bill doesn't even go so far as current building codes, fire safety, and other such laws do. The bill doesn't require business owners to allow privately carried guns into their businesses. It simply establishes liability if someone who would have otherwise been carrying, is injured or killed while disarmed. If someone doesn't like the liability of wet floors or contaminated food, they should work to keep the floors dry and the food safe before doing business with the public.

    If someone doesn't like the idea of being held financially liable for creating an unarmed victim zone that all but begs murderous psychopaths to mow down innocents, maybe someone ought to think twice about banning lawfully carried personal defensive items.

    Frankly, this is a very measured bill. In our current social/political/legal climate where a business owner can't even refuse to provide certain services that violate his deepest held social or religious beliefs, where he can't peacefully disassociate those persons whose conduct (not merely some immutable trait, but actual conduct) he finds offensive, I see no reason why gun carriers should not enjoy the same explicit, legal protections for their conduct.

    But this bill is a pretty good start, at least in concept.

    Charles

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    336
    Where's the like button when you need it!

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    I should note that one heartburn I have with the bill is that it seems to limit its protections to those with permits to carry. This is not a terrible starting place. But I think an idea version of this bill would provide equal protection to anyone who could demonstrate they were likely to have been legally armed whether they have a permit or not. Or, perhaps even extend protections to all customers regardless of whether they were likely to have otherwise been armed.

    I could justify this on the theory that an advertised "gun free zone" is an invitation to criminal violence. In the case of a fire and locked fire doors, we would not limit cause of action to only those who could demonstrate that they might have been carrying a fire extinguisher if they'd know the fire doors were locked, nor even to those who can prove they could have escaped the fire save for the locked doors. Locked fire doors demonstrate such callous disregard for human life and limb that both criminal and universal liability would be in order. Why not the same for advertising a "gun free zone" at a public establishment with zero real security?

    Charles

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    This is an effort to properly balance a business owner's private property rights with the individual customers' rights to life and limb.

    It took legislation to firmly establish the duty for business owners to provide proper fire escapes and other modest safety measures such as maximum occupancy and building codes.

    This bill doesn't even go so far as current building codes, fire safety, and other such laws do. The bill doesn't require business owners to allow privately carried guns into their businesses. It simply establishes liability if someone who would have otherwise been carrying, is injured or killed while disarmed. If someone doesn't like the liability of wet floors or contaminated food, they should work to keep the floors dry and the food safe before doing business with the public.

    If someone doesn't like the idea of being held financially liable for creating an unarmed victim zone that all but begs murderous psychopaths to mow down innocents, maybe someone ought to think twice about banning lawfully carried personal defensive items.

    Frankly, this is a very measured bill. In our current social/political/legal climate where a business owner can't even refuse to provide certain services that violate his deepest held social or religious beliefs, where he can't peacefully disassociate those persons whose conduct (not merely some immutable trait, but actual conduct) he finds offensive, I see no reason why gun carriers should not enjoy the same explicit, legal protections for their conduct.

    But this bill is a pretty good start, at least in concept.

    Charles
    As is indicated in 39-17-1359 (referenced in the proposed legislation) relief is provided for those injured on private property that is currently posted. Wet floors, a locked fire door(s), ect. are not addressed by this bill.

    I addressed the points of the bill that concern me that go beyond my general dislike for government interfering with the peaceable exercise of a private property owner to control his property as he sees fit.

    You object to a private property owner exercising his right to control his property contrary to your wishes. You desire government to be used to compel a private property owner to bend to your objections or else.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member Fallguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    McKenzie Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    708
    I'm always torn on stuff like this. Personally I think a property owner should have 100% control over his property, allow smoking if he chooses, discriminate based on any criteria he chooses, disallow any activity he chooses and so on. But if his property is open to the public, the government already forces him to accommodate and trade with those he may not wish to since his property is open to the public, some things he may have to allow are not specifically enumerated rights such as the right to be armed.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallguy View Post
    I'm always torn on stuff like this. Personally I think a property owner should have 100% control over his property, allow smoking if he chooses, discriminate based on any criteria he chooses, disallow any activity he chooses and so on. But if his property is open to the public, the government already forces him to accommodate and trade with those he may not wish to since his property is open to the public, some things he may have to allow are not specifically enumerated rights such as the right to be armed.
    Next question. Entry cannot be barred, must service be mandated by the state?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fallguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    McKenzie Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Next question. Entry cannot be barred, must service be mandated by the state?
    I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but in general I don't think the state should force you to do anything in general.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallguy View Post
    I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but in general I don't think the state should force you to do anything in general.
    I understand your position.

    Would/should a OCing citizen have a cause of action for being denied service once he enters the property where no sign is posted. CCer would not likely have this problem.

    (b) Any person or entity authorized to post property pursuant to 39-17-1359 who elects, pursuant to that authority, to prohibit the possession of firearms by a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to 39-17-1351, thereby assumes absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of the permit holder while on the posted property and while on any property the permit holder is required to traverse in order to travel to and from the location where the permit holder's firearm is stored.
    The above reads that a armed, or unarmed, citizen has a cause of action if he is harmed in a "communal" parking lot/parking structure, even the entire confines of a mall, from any of the sources outlined below.
    (c) The responsibility of the person or entity posting for the safety and defense of the permit holder shall extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.
    39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings -- Posting notice.

    (a)(1) Except as provided in 39-17-1313, an individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.
    Why is this current provision not addressed in the bill? Why do Tennesseans ignore this provision? And where are the definitions for defensible man-made and natural hazards?

    This bill is bad for private property owners.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,729
    Liability should extend to all patrons, not just permit holders, not just gun owners. Other than that it is a step forward.

    Gun free zones affect more than just permit holders, as far as I know a child cannot get a permit, but is benefited from the presence of good guys with a gun.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  16. #16
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,326
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    This is a effort to diminish private property rights.
    Indeed.
    Conservatives will huff and puff about government intrusion when a bakery is forced to make cakes for gays but happily cheers this same type of intrusion.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Conservatives will huff and puff about government intrusion when a bakery is forced to make cakes for gays but happily cheers this same type of intrusion.
    And what is your point? Liberals will wet themselves at the very idea you might own, much less carry a gun and howl bloody murder at not being able to deny you access and services if you do carry a gun, but insist that wedding bakers and photographers be forced to use their creative talent to participate in a public affirmation of homosexual conduct contrary to the artist's personal standards and beliefs.

    Socialists would just end private property.

    And anarchy tends to lead to communism that also ends private property. (See quotes with cites in my sig line.)

    If you want to take a moderate libertarian view that we should repeal all anti-discrimination laws, that is a principled position to take while complaining about this bill. Most other positions are just one group or another liking their particular limits on business property while objecting to others' preferred limits.

    Charles

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    As is indicated in 39-17-1359 (referenced in the proposed legislation) relief is provided for those injured on private property that is currently posted. Wet floors, a locked fire door(s), ect. are not addressed by this bill.
    Correct. Wet floors, locked fire doors, etc have been previously and pretty much universally addressed in this nation. As has denying access and services based on race, gender, religious or political affiliation, and now based on choosing to engage in homosexual conduct and broadcasting that choice to the public.

    If you'd like to publicly state your objection to these successful "efforts to diminish property rights" I can accept your objection to this bill as principled. Otherwise...

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    You object to a private property owner exercising his right to control his property contrary to your wishes. You desire government to be used to compel a private property owner to bend to your objections or else.
    I object to your continued pejorative description of my position.

    I object to those who invite the public to enter their premises while maintaining a dangerous environment.

    Do you really object to laws prohibiting grossly dangerous conditions like locked or non-existent fire doors?

    I also object to an unlevel playing field.

    So long as Christian bakers and photographers face governmental force for not participating in homosexual "weddings" and receptions, so long as all male institutions face lawsuits forcing them to admit women, so long as affirmative action places white males at disadvantage for college and jobs, the left can live with one requirement they don't like.

    Charles

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    This bill is bad for private property owners.
    Any more so that standard liability for dangerous conditions like locked fire doors?

    Any more so than a host of anti-discrimination laws that actually require a business owner to grant access and render services?

    Charles

  20. #20
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,729
    IMO the proposed bill does not erode private property rights, no more than holding a home owner responsible for injuries on their property. It has been that way for decades, business private property owners have been given a pass. I have no problem with PP owners setting rules for their property, but they ARE responsible for unsafe conditions that lead to injury. Gun free zones have been proven to lead to injury on more than enough cases.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Correct. Wet floors, locked fire doors, etc have been previously and pretty much universally addressed in this nation. As has denying access and services based on race, gender, religious or political affiliation, and now based on choosing to engage in homosexual conduct and broadcasting that choice to the public.

    If you'd like to publicly state your objection to these successful "efforts to diminish property rights" I can accept your objection to this bill as principled. Otherwise...

    I object to your continued pejorative description of my position.

    I object to those who invite the public to enter their premises while maintaining a dangerous environment.

    Do you really object to laws prohibiting grossly dangerous conditions like locked or non-existent fire doors?

    I also object to an unlevel playing field.

    So long as Christian bakers and photographers face governmental force for not participating in homosexual "weddings" and receptions, so long as all male institutions face lawsuits forcing them to admit women, so long as affirmative action places white males at disadvantage for college and jobs, the left can live with one requirement they don't like.

    Charles
    I indicated my specific objections to this bill and why I believe that this bill would be bad law.

    Does not this bill recommend that the government be used to compel/coerce a private property owner to act contrary to his wishes regarding the peaceable use of his property? Do you not support this bill?

    My description of your position on this bill and what it portends is accurate.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,110
    It appears that there is no distinction made between a private business and a private residence. It is not clear to me that a church would be exempt from this bill.

    Utah makes a exception, this is good, for private residences and church property.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,729
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I indicated my specific objections to this bill and why I believe that this bill would be bad law.

    Does not this bill recommend that the government be used to compel/coerce a private property owner to act contrary to his wishes regarding the peaceable use of his property? Do you not support this bill?

    My description of your position on this bill and what it portends is accurate.
    IMO they are not compelling, it is not illegal in the bill to deny access to those carrying. It only establishes what should be clear common law. That the PP owner is responsible for the safety of those that are on their property. As it should be. I repeat it is not in the bill illegal to post gun free zones.

    This is pretty common standards of liberty, personal responsibility. Shame it takes a law to get it.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    IMO they are not compelling, it is not illegal in the bill to deny access to those carrying. It only establishes what should be clear common law. That the PP owner is responsible for the safety of those that are on their property. As it should be. I repeat it is not in the bill illegal to post gun free zones.

    This is pretty common standards of liberty, personal responsibility. Shame it takes a law to get it.
    Liability extends to a parking structure? A large shared parking lot, such as at a mall, the interior of the mall?
    (b) Any person or entity authorized to post property pursuant to 39-17-1359 who elects, pursuant to that authority, to prohibit the possession of firearms by a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to 39-17-1351, thereby assumes absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of the permit holder while on the posted property and while on any property the permit holder is required to traverse in order to travel to and from the location where the permit holder's firearm is stored.
    (c) The responsibility of the person or entity posting for the safety and defense of the permit holder shall extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.
    What exactly are defensible man-made and natural hazards?

    This is bad law.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,280
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Bad idea.
    +1

    As said above, it interferes with property rights. And, it shifts some responsibility for an attack from the perpetrator to the property owner.

    Government just needs to keep its nose out of it. There is no good answer except personal responsibility. If a self-defense supporter doesn't like the rules, he has to take a calculated risk.

    What is the flip-side of the coin on this bill? Once this gets entrenched, if a guns-allowed property owner is killed, is the CCW guy who didn't carry that day liable for not preventing the property owner's death? Does the property owner's survivors get to sue the CCW guy?

    The criminals who would trigger this statute cannot possibly do as much damage as government once it is allowed to operate in this area.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •