2A Pride
Regular Member
I have been researching a particular subject the last few days and would like some feedback from others here on this forum. I am heavily considering writing our local representative Scott Desjarlais and asking if he would consider sponsoring a bill, but I would like to know the thoughts of others in the gun community first.
As we all know "Gun-Free Zones" are really "Make-Believe Gun-Free Zones" and should probably be labled as "Law-Abiding-Citizen Gun-free Zones."With the exception of relatively efficient locations such as courthouses and certain government buildings, most places that are "gun-free" only deter people like us from carrying there, not criminals. Where I grew up, the state of Kentucky, the sign posting for privately-owned business has a separate enforcement and consequence than what the state of Tennessee has adapted. In Kentucky, a sign has no legal enforcement. Folks can post no guns allowed if they want, but it was not illegal to carry right on past the sign. If someone from the business noticed you were carrying a gun, they must then ask you to leave. If you do not leave, you will then be charged with trespassing upon this taking place in front of an LEO. In Tennessee however, as you all know the signs do carry the weight of the law.
I am a business owner, and I respect the right of every business owner to do as they like with their own property, just as I support my right to do business elsewhere whenever possible. But, there are times, such as visits to private hospitals or medical clinics etc., when that isn't always an option. What I would propose is that if someone were injured as a result of the posting of a "No Firearms Allowed" sign in Tennessee (Think of Luby's in Texas), the business would be able to be held civilly responsible for the the harm caused as a result of that sign. I do not feel this is in any way a violation of Constitutional rights as it still gives the business owner the choice to ban legal possession of firearms if he/she chooses to do so. I don't want to be told by anyone when I can/can't mop the floor in my own business, but if someone is injured by a wet floor that I chose to mop during my busiest hour of the day, of course I can be held liable for that under current law. I don't really see any difference between the two given scenarios.
There is a precedent set for this, as Arizona, Georgia, and Ohio have all adopted a Liability Act for "Make-Believe Gun-Free Zones." This of course would not apply to any location which bans firearm possession by federal law (such as schools, post office, courtrooms, fed buildings, etc.). Alan Korwin had an excellent article in American Handgunner Nov. 2011 issue, and that's what really got me thinking about this.
For background info, talking points, and model language, visit www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/index.htm
Please give me your feedback on whether you would support this type of legistlation, as well as if you would also be willing to write a letter asking for sponsorship of a bill like this. Your ideas are very much appreciated.
Carry Safely, Carry Proudly, and Carry ALWAYS (wherever legal)
As we all know "Gun-Free Zones" are really "Make-Believe Gun-Free Zones" and should probably be labled as "Law-Abiding-Citizen Gun-free Zones."With the exception of relatively efficient locations such as courthouses and certain government buildings, most places that are "gun-free" only deter people like us from carrying there, not criminals. Where I grew up, the state of Kentucky, the sign posting for privately-owned business has a separate enforcement and consequence than what the state of Tennessee has adapted. In Kentucky, a sign has no legal enforcement. Folks can post no guns allowed if they want, but it was not illegal to carry right on past the sign. If someone from the business noticed you were carrying a gun, they must then ask you to leave. If you do not leave, you will then be charged with trespassing upon this taking place in front of an LEO. In Tennessee however, as you all know the signs do carry the weight of the law.
I am a business owner, and I respect the right of every business owner to do as they like with their own property, just as I support my right to do business elsewhere whenever possible. But, there are times, such as visits to private hospitals or medical clinics etc., when that isn't always an option. What I would propose is that if someone were injured as a result of the posting of a "No Firearms Allowed" sign in Tennessee (Think of Luby's in Texas), the business would be able to be held civilly responsible for the the harm caused as a result of that sign. I do not feel this is in any way a violation of Constitutional rights as it still gives the business owner the choice to ban legal possession of firearms if he/she chooses to do so. I don't want to be told by anyone when I can/can't mop the floor in my own business, but if someone is injured by a wet floor that I chose to mop during my busiest hour of the day, of course I can be held liable for that under current law. I don't really see any difference between the two given scenarios.
There is a precedent set for this, as Arizona, Georgia, and Ohio have all adopted a Liability Act for "Make-Believe Gun-Free Zones." This of course would not apply to any location which bans firearm possession by federal law (such as schools, post office, courtrooms, fed buildings, etc.). Alan Korwin had an excellent article in American Handgunner Nov. 2011 issue, and that's what really got me thinking about this.
For background info, talking points, and model language, visit www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/index.htm
Please give me your feedback on whether you would support this type of legistlation, as well as if you would also be willing to write a letter asking for sponsorship of a bill like this. Your ideas are very much appreciated.
Carry Safely, Carry Proudly, and Carry ALWAYS (wherever legal)