SB 1736 Lets Gun Owners Sue GFZ Owners

twoskinsonemanns said:

It's a natural response. When I see a group of people I supported when their liberties were challenged vilify a different group going through a similar struggle I feel vindictive and swear to stop supporting them... But it doesn't last and I feel libertarian again by the day's end.

Click to expand...

I think you just coined a new forum user name: "Day'sEndLibertarian".

I'm telling you, before the year is out, this is gonna crop up as a username on some forum somewhere.

Citizen said:

... Is that one of the reasons at the bottom of Charles' thinking?

Tit-for-tat?!?! Really!?!?! It only takes about half a brain cell to realize where that leads. Oh! You took some of our rights, so we're going to take away some others from your side.

Great! Just great. How long until government has made life miserable for everybody?

Click to expand...

Yes it is ONE contributor to my position here.

It only takes half a brain cell to realize what happens if one side can impose its will on you without ever having to suffer ever having your will imposed on itself.

My position on this is not much different than those who argue we'd be better off bringing back a draft with zero exclusions. It is easy to engage in endless and undeclared wars when it is just poor kids from the inner city or the rural sticks getting sent home in body bags. But when attending an Ivy League college won't get the congressmen's sons out of the line of fire, congress may think twice about how often we really ought to be engaged in a war.

Put another way, one way to get bad laws repealed is to demand 100% equal enforcement. Is that not what many here argue regarding qualified immunity for cops? If cops had to live under the same laws of self-defense as do commoners, would not the self-defense laws change a bit...while simultaneously, cops might change some of their conduct a little as well?

Another example: How many police officers have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us, supporting some kind of nation-wide carry provisions since they got their special exemption that let's them carry coast-to-coast, on duty or off, even in retirement, without regard to local laws?

If you think the statists on the left are going to come to some grand intellectual enlightenment to respect your rights because you are so good at respecting their rights, you're are simply not dealing with reality. As Heinlein reminds us, Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. (- Lazarus Long, from "Time Enough For Love")

What is the self interest for liberals to respect your rights? Or to at least stop and think before demanding any more of your rights? Being forced to participate in homosexual "weddings" has been a huge eye opener for many conservatives. What do you think is a better eye opener for liberals than being forced to permit gun packing rednecks into their businesses just as they have forced conservative business owners to associate with some groups they'd rather avoid?

Did you want to effect actual political and social change such that many more persons respect your rights? Or did you just want to engage in so much of a mental exercise? Invoke a man's self interest. And until you demonstrate that you CAN and WILL infringe his rights just as much as he infringes on yours, your promises to respect his rights are pretty meaningless. What is the benefit of a promise you are powerless to break? The promise gains him nothing. You cannot negotiate from a position of weakness, only from strength. MAD may be an insane strategy, except for its proven track record of keeping all sides from launching a first strike. If the other side is going to make you miserable, your only hope for a peaceful solution is to demonstrate your ability to make him equally miserable on equal grounds.

NOW, he has a reason to sit down and come to a mutually agreeable resolution with you. Whether that be your foolish vision for anarchy (leading to communism), or whether it is merely setting some bounds on how far each side will intrude into the other's business and property, you at least have some reasonable position from which to negotiate.

Not to mention the fact, that in the case of anti-discrimination, the liberals have convinced me. Society is far better if we can all go about out daily business free from discrimination on the part of businesses open to the public. So let's have a level playing field and make sure that gun owners are no more discriminated against in the procuring of routine goods and services than are homosexuals, women, democrats, Catholics or Jews, blacks or Hispanics.

Charles

OC for ME said:

Liability seems to already exist as referenced in 39-17-1359(d). I am open to correction if this is not the case. What this bill does is extend liability to areas that a business owner could never adequately control, or should reasonably be expected to control. Such as the entirety of a mall parking lot/garage as well as the entire interior of the mall, no matter the proximity between the posted business and where the permit holder's firearm is stored.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the effects of one's conduct extend beyond the immediate area.

In Utah, our solution for the risks imposed to employees working for anti-gun employers who banned guns from all company property, including parking lots (and thus the interior of employee's vehicles) was to simply outlaw most employment policies banning guns in private cars parked in company parking lots.

Toxic chemicals dispensed into the environment, sometimes spread quite a ways.

OC for ME said:

Liability for building codes, immediate safety issues such as slippery floors, fire extinguishers or fire suppression systems, snow on the front stoop have existed for many decades. My posts on these issues are here for all to read.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see either a summary of your position, or a citation to your posts that address these issues.

On point here, suppose the bill did not extend to external areas, but imposed liability only for the interior of the business itself? Would you still object? Or are you ok with that concept?

OC for ME said:

As to Utah law, I was completely off the mark in my understanding. Thank you for correcting my erroneous understanding.

Click to expand...

You are most welcome.

Charles

twoskinsonemanns said:

It's a natural response. When I see a group of people I supported when their liberties were challenged vilify a different group going through a similar struggle I feel vindictive and swear to stop supporting them... But it doesn't last and I feel libertarian again by the day's end.

Click to expand...

And that helps explain why true believer libertarianism fails at the polls. Others can get what they want from you without ever having to reciprocate. Charity is a wonderful thing in private or among churches. In politics, it gets you abused.

Grossly off topic for this thread other than as a timely and stark example of the phenomenon you note, this article on homosexual in the Castro District of SanFran being unhappy about heterosexuals feeling comfortable moving in would be funny if the hypocrisy were not so rank.

A few excerpts:


So all the kiss-ins, the demands for anti-discrimination protection, all the infringements on the property rights and freedom of association of others was fine for the homosexuals. But they sure don't like it when their acceptance is high enough that their presence doesn't scare away heterosexuals.

It is really hard to ever make up any ground on a one-way street. You've got to have a two-way street to have any hope of convincing others to respect your rights.

Charles

WalkingWolf said:

If the person is trespassed or leaves no. But if they are told they can stay but unarmed YES. It is no different than my home, I can tell my guests they cannot wear shoes, or leave. But if they stay, and their foot is injured I am responsible.

Click to expand...

I may have not articulated my question correctly, my apologies.

No sign is posted to avoid the liability proposed in this bill. The OCer is armed yet will not be served due to his handgun. Should the owner be held liable for failure to serve due only to visible handgun?

utbagpiper said:

Sometimes the effects of one's conduct extend beyond the immediate area.

Click to expand...

... 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.

Click to expand...

Reading the bill there is no limit to the extent.

For example: A private property owner is liable from the time a permit holder leaves his home until he returns to his home. If the permit holder lived in Knoxville TN, travels to the New Daisey Theater on Beale St. in Memphis TN and returns to his home, the New Daisey Theater is liable for permit holder's well being.

utbagpiper said:

I'd love to see either a summary of your position, or a citation to your posts that address these issues.

Click to expand...

I am incompetent when it comes to OCDO's search feature. To summarize, I will not hold my RKBA as superior to the peaceable exercise of a private property owner's property right. Building codes, ADA compliance, Title VII ect. are all needed, yet there are exceptions. Research knob/tube wiring, lead paint, lead water pipes, asbestos flooring/insulation, as but a few examples. Do you advocate that a private property owner be held liable for complying with the law?

utbagpiper said:

On point here, suppose the bill did not extend to external areas, but imposed liability only for the interior of the business itself? Would you still object? Or are you ok with that concept?

Click to expand...

My objection to this bill is the extension of liability beyond the immediate control of the private property.

OC for ME said:

... You walk through the front door the owner is liable, you walk back out of the front door the owner is no longer liable. ...

Click to expand...

A slippery stoop has long been a liability issue that is not confined to private property.

And the answer is yes, the owner is still depriving the patron of the means of self defense.

WalkingWolf said:

And the answer is yes, the owner is still depriving the patron of the means of self defense.

Click to expand...

Again my apologies.

The OCer has his firearm in the business because no sign is posted and the owner will not bar entry to avoid the liability proposed in the bill. The owner will not serve the OCer due to his OC'd firearm. Should he owner be held liable for not serving the OCer?

OC for ME said:

Again my apologies.

The OCer has his firearm in the business because no sign is posted and the owner will not bar entry to avoid the liability proposed in the bill. The owner will not serve the OCer due to his OC'd firearm. Should he owner be held liable for not serving the OCer?

Click to expand...

I invite someone over for dinner, with other folks. I allow them to enter with shoes, but they cannot eat while wearing shoes. One of the diners has a very contagious foot fungus, and infects the others. IMO I am liable, as I am setting them up for the possibility of fungus.

I guess I am the one not being clear, if the actions of one, affects another they are responsible for their actions. That is liberty.

I was going to use the Hooker condom analogy, but thought might be too racy for some.

WalkingWolf said:

I invite someone over for dinner, with other folks. I allow them to enter with shoes, but they cannot eat while wearing shoes. One of the diners has a very contagious foot fungus, and infects the others. IMO I am liable, as I am setting them up for the possibility of fungus.

I guess I am the one not being clear, if the actions of one, affects another they are responsible for their actions. That is liberty.

I was going to use the Hooker condom analogy, but thought might be too racy for some.

Click to expand...

You have every right to deny food to the shoe wearer.

You have every right demand that the shoe wearer leave your home because they do not remove their shoes.

I understand your example but your example does not address the question I asked..

A sign is not posted to avoid the proposed liability in the bill. The permit holder is in the store, armed and able to defend himself, must he be served? Will government be used to force the business owner to serve the permit holder.

OC for ME said:

You have every right to deny food to the shoe wearer.

You have every right demand that the shoe wearer leave your home because they do not remove their shoes.

I understand your example but your example does not address the question I asked..

A sign is not posted to avoid the proposed liability in the bill. The permit holder is in the store, armed and able to defend himself, must he be served? Will government be used to force the business owner to serve the permit holder.

Click to expand...

No they can refuse service, BUT if the patron complies because he wants to eat, and becomes a victim they are liable sign, or no sign.

OC for ME said:

Will government be used to force the business owner to serve the permit holder.

Click to expand...

I thought we had well established that the bill in question dealt only with liability for a posted defenseless victim zone and has nothing to do with forcing business owners to accommodate unwanted conduct.

Why do you keep reverting to a discussion of accommodating unwanted conduct?

But on that subject...

Are you equally worried about government being used to force a business owner to serve a homosexual couple holding hands and expressing other modest affections inside his establishment?

Do you want a level playing field or don't you?

Charles

good heavens mate, this is the third or fourth post in this thread alone referencing LGBT rhetoric...

one might consider you extremely homophobic...

geez give it a rest would ya!!

ipse

The mate doth protest too much, methinks w/sincere apologies to the Bard

WalkingWolf said:

No they can refuse service, ...

Click to expand...

I think, please correct me if I am in error, that you do not advocate that government be used to force the owner to serve the permit holder.

The undefined extent of liability of the "posted defenseless victim zone" is what will make this bill bad law.

The absence of definitions for defensible man-made and natural hazards is what will make this bill bad law.

OC for ME said:

I think, please correct me if I am in error, that you do not advocate that government be used to force the owner to serve the permit holder.

Click to expand...

Please correct me if I am wrong but do you advocate that government be used to serve the permit holder with interactions with LE?

Are you advocating the elimination of civil courts?

OC for ME said:

The undefined extent of liability of the "posted defenseless victim zone" is what will make this bill bad law.

The absence of definitions for defensible man-made and natural hazards is what will make this bill bad law.

Click to expand...

Yes. You've made very clear you dislike these portions of the bill.

What you continue to side-step is whether you agree with the principle of liability for someone advertising a defenseless victim zone.

Could the bill be modified to where you would support it? Or do you oppose the entire concept of holding a business owner civilly liable for creating, maintaining, and advertising a defenseless victim zone?

Charles

OC for ME said:

I understand your position.

What of the snow near the location that the permit holder's firearm is stored that may be relatively far from the front door where the sign is posted? My objection to this bill has been clearly articulated. You walk through the front door the owner is liable, you walk back out of the front door the owner is no longer liable.

No signs the owner must be immune from liability for "the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, vicious animals, and wild animals that might affect a permit holder. The owner must be immune as well from "defensible man-made and natural hazards" that may affect a permit holder. This permit holder must be liable for his conduct if he uses his firearm while on the premises.

I may be incorrect on this count, a defensible man-made hazard could be viewed as a slippery floor, or snow on the front stoop.

Click to expand...

utbagpiper said:

Yes. You've made very clear you dislike these portions of the bill.

What you continue to side-step is whether you agree with the principle of liability for someone advertising a defenseless victim zone.

Could the bill be modified to where you would support it? Or do you oppose the entire concept of holding a business owner civilly liable for creating, maintaining, and advertising a defenseless victim zone?

Charles

Click to expand...

If you are not going to read what I post on this topic I withdraw from our discussion.

WalkingWolf said:

Please correct me if I am wrong but do you advocate that government be used to serve the permit holder with interactions with LE?

Are you advocating the elimination of civil courts?

Click to expand...

It appears that you too are choosing not to read what I have posted on this topic.

OC for ME said:

The undefined extent of liability of the "posted defenseless victim zone" is what will make this bill bad law.

The absence of definitions for defensible man-made and natural hazards is what will make this bill bad law.

Click to expand...

OC, you are correct in that the absence of clear accountability definition(s) of situations could make this a tort heaven where everyone in their brother will climb on the bandwagon trying to sue for damages, real or perceived.

prime example is the recent case where, quote: A Chicago police officer who fatally shot a 19-year-old college student and accidentally killed his neighbor filed a lawsuit against the teenager's estate Friday, arguing the student's actions prompted the shooting and caused the officer "extreme emotional trauma." unquote. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35519757

the only folk who are going to benefit over this ambiguously open-ended bill are the attorney(ies) and the insurance company(ies).

ipse

What if the prior restraint is overturned/removed and permit-less carry is no longer a crime?

Bad bill that could become bad law.