• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SB 1736 Lets Gun Owners Sue GFZ Owners

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Holy crap! Somerville, you guys have a brilliant senator!

http://www.youngcons.com/new-bill-in-tennessee-allows-gun-owners-hurt-in-gun-free-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:

RikuNoganashi

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
30
Location
Cookeville TN
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.
 

Lthrnck

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
656
Location
Englewood, Ohio, USA
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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...

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
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 
Top