SB 1736 Lets Gun Owners Sue GFZ Owners

OC for ME · Jan 29, 2016

utbagpiper said:
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.

OC for ME · Jan 29, 2016

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.

WalkingWolf · Jan 29, 2016

OC for ME said:
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.

OC for ME · Feb 1, 2016

WalkingWolf said:
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.

Citizen · Feb 1, 2016

OC for ME said:
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.

Citizen · Feb 1, 2016

Fallguy said:
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.

Not sure whether your last sentence supports or opposes government interference in this area. If my comment is misaligned, don't take it personally. Just using yours as a springboard.

Saying government is justified in this latest attempt at interfering with the rights of property owners who are open to the public because those property owners are already required to make other accommodations is like saying we should accept massive government money printing because Roosevelt all but erased the gold standard.

Just because government got away with previous interference in private property rights can in no way justify this latest attempt.

Citizen · Feb 1, 2016

utbagpiper said:
SNIP 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.

qft

Oh! My! God! 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?

utbagpiper · Feb 1, 2016

OC for ME said:
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.

The bill does NOT compel a property owner in any way. It merely makes him liable for the risk he creates. This is common with many other hazards. As Walking Wolf noted, it is a shame a law is needed to do this with respect to advertised unarmed victim zones. But clearly it is needed.

Your description of the bill is materially in error which means your description of my position is also in error and simply pejorative. Please avoid repeating such inaccurate atributions.

Why are you so reticent to discuss your position on existing laws that do actually require private property owners to use their property in ways they may not want to?

Why do you oppose a legal level playing field?

Charles

utbagpiper · Feb 1, 2016

Citizen said:
The criminals who would trigger this statute cannot possibly do as much damage as government once it is allowed to operate in this area.

Utter and demonstrable rubbish.

How many have been maimed or killed by either liability laws or even by non discrimination laws?

How many have been maimed or killed by criminals operating freely in defenseless victim zones?

How do those two numbers compare?

Those blinded by rank political ideology....

Furthermore, this bill sets no new precedence. Government has been involved in establishing liability for various conduct for decades or longer.

Charles

utbagpiper · Feb 1, 2016

OC for ME said:
Utah makes a exception, this is good, for private residences and church property.

Utah has no such law regarding liability for advertising defenseless victim zones. As such, there is no exception.

Utah law imposes criminal penalties (an infraction) for violating a "no gun" policy at a private residence or a house of worship. No such penalty exists for violating a no gun policy at a private business, regardless of whether the violator is an employee or customer.

While a man's home and holy ground must be given the greatest possible respect, neither are immune to liability for dangerous conditions including slippery walks or attractive nuisances such as unsecured construction sites or swimming pools.

The bill of this thread is about liability. It is not about forcing unwanted conduct onto business owners. It is about codifying liability.

Charles

WalkingWolf · Feb 1, 2016

OC for ME said:
Liability extends to a parking structure? A large shared parking lot, such as at a mall, the interior of the mall?What exactly are defensible man-made and natural hazards?

This is bad law.

If you plan on entering a gun free zone unarmed are you going to leave your gun on the sidewalk in front of the store? If the policies of the store result in injuries, just like not clearing snow, IMO they are responsible. These are the tenets of liberty, do as you wish, but take responsibility for your actions.

Elm Creek Smith · Feb 1, 2016

Citizen said:
How long until government has made life miserable for everybody?

We're already there.

twoskinsonemanns · Feb 2, 2016

Citizen said:
qft

Oh! My! God! 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?

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.

OC for ME · Feb 2, 2016

utbagpiper said:
The bill does NOT compel a property owner in any way. It merely makes him liable for the risk he creates. This is common with many other hazards. As Walking Wolf noted, it is a shame a law is needed to do this with respect to advertised unarmed victim zones. But clearly it is needed.

Your description of the bill is materially in error which means your description of my position is also in error and simply pejorative. Please avoid repeating such inaccurate attributions.

Why are you so reticent to discuss your position on existing laws that do actually require private property owners to use their property in ways they may not want to?

Why do you oppose a legal level playing field?

Charles

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.

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.

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

OC for ME · Feb 2, 2016

WalkingWolf said:
If you plan on entering a gun free zone unarmed are you going to leave your gun on the sidewalk in front of the store? If the policies of the store result in injuries, just like not clearing snow, IMO they are responsible. These are the tenets of liberty, do as you wish, but take responsibility for your actions.

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.

Wet floors, a locked fire door(s), ect. are not addressed by this bill.

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.

solus · Feb 2, 2016

the locked doors, walkway width, construction, etc., situations are covered under the NFPA 101 life safety codes (not Dr. Phil's new book) which 'many' communities have adapted and is normally enforced by the local Fire Dept and/or building inspectors.

ipse

WalkingWolf · Feb 2, 2016

If I have a doctors appointment, as I usually do monthly. I must leave my handgun in the vehicle, or at home. If I decide to walk, the hospital should be held liable for the whole distance from my home.

Nobody is talking jailing a store owner, but if a store owners policy causes injury it does not matter where that injury is, they should be held liable. Unless we do away with civil court, that would include holding LEA accountable the standard has always been that people are responsible for their actions, or inactions. Even if those actions are legal.

OC for ME · Feb 2, 2016

WalkingWolf said:
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.

Oddly enough it affects the PP owner as well.

WalkingWolf said:
If I have a doctors appointment, as I usually do monthly. I must leave my handgun in the vehicle, or at home. If I decide to walk, the hospital should be held liable for the whole distance from my home.

Nobody is talking jailing a store owner, but if a store owners policy causes injury it does not matter where that injury is, they should be held liable. Unless we do away with civil court, that would include holding LEA accountable the standard has always been that people are responsible for their actions, or inactions. Even if those actions are legal.

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.

WalkingWolf · Feb 2, 2016

OC for ME said:
Oddly enough it affects the PP owner as well.

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.

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.

davidmcbeth · Feb 2, 2016

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.

And that's a good thing !

I-tried-the-normal-thing-Didn-t-really-work-out-No

SB 1736 Lets Gun Owners Sue GFZ Owners

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned