Would you support a Liability Act for "Gun-Free Zones?"

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)

There are some things that I think would need to be done with or before this.

One thing to remember, unlike AZ, is in TN it is illegal to carry a firearm, it is not a right. It is a privellage that 3-4% of the population have bought from the state. So the state has basically just allowed property owners to choose to not allow the privellage to extend to their property. So until carry is truly a right in TN, I'm not sure you will ever be able to remove the weight of law from a posted sign.

Also...if you are going to hold property owners liable for posting their property, then those that doen't should be immune from civial liabilty for the actions of those who do carry into their place. I know some places post simply because the owner is anti-2A, but I'm sure some also post in an effort to try and reduce their liabilty in case of a shooting in their place. Because let's face it, most of us on here (or me for sure at least) don't have deep pockets, so if you shoot someone in McDonalds...or even worse, hit an innoncent while shooting at the BG....you know McDonalds is going to be named in the suit because they have the money....if they pay to just make it go away. Trouble is...IMO McDonalds didn't do anything wrong allowing you to carry in there, they didn't make you pull the trigger and shoot (BG or innoncent) whoever you shot, so why should they have any liablitly?

In TN property owners already have a duty to protect you from a threat they know about or should have known about, just not from a general threat (the threat of simply being out in public)

I'm not saying I'm against such a bill/law, just that there are other things to consider along with it....

Fallguy,

Thanks for the reply. You brought up some very valid issues that I had not considered. In Kentucky, possession of a firearm is not illegal (only possession of a concealed firearm is), but in Tennessee it is. I think that would definitely have an affect on whether or not a Liability Act could be passed here. Most of our true conservative politicians voted against allowing lawsuits to be filed against gun manufacturers for violence occurring with a firearm, so there is some precedence of providing immunity to those not directly responsible for a gun fatality or injury. This was exactly why I wanted feedback from others here on this site. Perhaps the best thing any of us could hope to accomplish is to get the law on possession of a handgun repealed. With four states now going to constitutional carry, and probably more in the near future, Tennessee takes a surprising stance on this one. Even Wisconsin doesn't require a permit to open carry for crying out loud.

Denial of civil rights under color of law is a crime (18 U.S.C. 241 et seq). Anyone feel like being a test-case to go all the way to Federal Supreme Court? I too find my pockets a little "shallow" for that particular ride.

Would I? Oh, Hail yes.
If an establishment prohibited patrons from taking medications while on their property and a patron had a medical complication as a result would they be responsible?
----- Note that there is No prohibition legally against discrimination based upon medical needs or necessity, it's not a "protected class."

Businesses, as well as people need to be held accountable for their actions.

I am against such a liability law because in my opinion it would create a headache for everyone in trying to actually determine how and when it applies. Presently a business is responsible for what happens on their property to a reasonable extent. If there is such a case where you can show that by being disarmed you could have prevented injury etc. the business can be held liable just like having a wet spot on the floor where you slip and fall. Although present laws do not specifically state anything about disarming someone it can be presented in court as a factor in your injuries. The problem with this is showing that your being disarmed actually did anything to increase the damages.

For instance in the Ludy's restaurant case would, or how many, people would have been saved by everyone in the restaurant being armed? If you are in Wal-Mart and something happens would the fact that you are armed have any affect on the outcome? If a gun liability law were to pass I see that every time something happens in a store that ever gun owner in there is going to start filing a lawsuit claiming that if they had been armed it would not have happened. In the Rep. Giffords shooting, what would have been different if there had been several people armed in the crowd. That is what the courts would have to sort out and such a gun liability law would just make it a free-for-all for ambulance chasers to start filing lawsuits before anyone even reaches the hospital for treatment.

PT111 said:

I am against such a liability law because in my opinion it would create a headache for everyone in trying to actually determine how and when it applies. Presently a business is responsible for what happens on their property to a reasonable extent. If there is such a case where you can show that by being disarmed you could have prevented injury etc. the business can be held liable just like having a wet spot on the floor where you slip and fall. Although present laws do not specifically state anything about disarming someone it can be presented in court as a factor in your injuries. The problem with this is showing that your being disarmed actually did anything to increase the damages.

For instance in the Ludy's restaurant case would, or how many, people would have been saved by everyone in the restaurant being armed? If you are in Wal-Mart and something happens would the fact that you are armed have any affect on the outcome? If a gun liability law were to pass I see that every time something happens in a store that ever gun owner in there is going to start filing a lawsuit claiming that if they had been armed it would not have happened. In the Rep. Giffords shooting, what would have been different if there had been several people armed in the crowd. That is what the courts would have to sort out and such a gun liability law would just make it a free-for-all for ambulance chasers to start filing lawsuits before anyone even reaches the hospital for treatment.

Click to expand...

As of know...I'm not sure how you could ever prove it was the business' fault that something happened to you because you were disarmed. Because, they didn't disarm you, you disarmed yourself when you made the choice to enter.

Of course also as I said above...as long as it is a crime to posses/carry a firearm in TN and having permit only makes a defense to that law....and state law allows property owners to remove that defense on their property...I don't see how you could hold them liable.... A disarmed permit holder is no different than the 95-96% of the population that can't legally go armed in there in the first place.

But I would argue that since only 4-5% of Tennesseans have permits (and not all of those carry all the time) and the amount of posted places are a fairly small percentage of all places and the odds of something happening specifically to a permit holder in one of those posted places is pretty low....the chances of there being a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers filing lawsuits is pretty dang low...

Fallguy said:

in TN it is illegal to carry a firearm, it is not a right

Click to expand...

It's a right protected by the US Constitution, by which all states promised to abide as they joined the USA.
The state is infringing that right, but it still exists.

fallguy said:

if you are going to hold property owners liable for posting their property, then those that don't should be immune from civil liabilty for the actions of those who do carry into their place.

Click to expand...

This is what WI did in our new concealed-carry law. See 175.60 (21) b & c, in the right-hand column on page 13 of this PDF.

(b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
(c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub. (15m) is immune from any liability arising from its decision.

Click to expand...

I wish the legislators had left out the "concealed" part of that,
and gone further to clearly state that places which are posted as "(legal) weapon-free zones" are liable for injuries or damage from criminal activity using 'weapons' covered under the law (firearms, knives, electrics).

As it is, most business owners who claim they posted so they wouldn't be liable for injuries pretty quickly remove the signs once they actually read the law. Sometimes they have to point out to their insurance handler that by posting they lost their immunity. One big furniture store here in Milwaukee claimed to have been told by their insurance agent they should post, & once a former & potential customer pointed out what I quoted above, the ins. co. very quickly & emphatically told them to remove the signs!

fallguy said:

In TN property owners already have a duty to protect you from a threat they know about or should have known about, just not from a general threat (the threat of simply being out in public).

Click to expand...

Given the multitude of massacres & injuries which have happened across the country (around the world) in "(legal) gun-free zones", how is it reasonable that they did not know about the threat caused by putting targets on their doors & on all customers in the parking lot?
I don't understand how any rational (sane) person can honestly believe that telling a violent predator you're defenseless will turn out well. Doesn't work for rabbits against wolves.

And in states which have force-of-law signs, criminals quickly figure out that those stores are safe to rob, while they avoid places they can't be sure if people are armed or not. I understand that's what happened in MN. Signs came down pretty quickly.

MKEgal said:

It's a right protected by the US Constitution, by which all states promised to abide as they joined the USA.
The state is infringing that right, but it still exists.

Click to expand...

I agree, but as you point out, the State of TN does not at this time.

MKEgal said:

This is what WI did in our new concealed-carry law. See 175.60 (21) b & c, in the right-hand column on page 13 of this PDF.

(b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
(c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub. (15m) is immune from any liability arising from its decision.

Click to expand...

I wish the legislators had left out the "concealed" part of that,
and gone further to clearly state that places which are posted as "(legal) weapon-free zones" are liable for injuries or damage from criminal activity using 'weapons' covered under the law (firearms, knives, electrics).

As it is, most business owners who claim they posted so they wouldn't be liable for injuries pretty quickly remove the signs once they actually read the law. Sometimes they have to point out to their insurance handler that by posting they lost their immunity. One big furniture store here in Milwaukee claimed to have been told by their insurance agent they should post, & once a former & potential customer pointed out what I quoted above, the ins. co. very quickly & emphatically told them to remove the signs!

Click to expand...

Perhaps if TN ever goes this route they can use the WI law as a model....seems pretty good

MKEgal said:

Given the multitude of massacres & injuries which have happened across the country (around the world) in "(legal) gun-free zones", how is it reasonable that they did not know about the threat caused by putting targets on their doors & on all customers in the parking lot?
I don't understand how any rational (sane) person can honestly believe that telling a violent predator you're defenseless will turn out well. Doesn't work for rabbits against wolves.

And in states which have force-of-law signs, criminals quickly figure out that those stores are safe to rob, while they avoid places they can't be sure if people are armed or not. I understand that's what happened in MN. Signs came down pretty quickly.

Click to expand...

Because those multitudes of incidents you speak of are a/the general threat. No court is going to hold a company liable for the general threats that simply exists in everyday life.

But if Business A in Town B knows there is someone attacking people in the parking lot every Friday afternoon, then they do have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect its patrons.

The sign law in TN has been on the books since the permit law was first passed, other than a few changes on what should be on the sign, the law has been the same. I don't know for sure, but I have never heard of any lawsuit, let alone a successful one, brought by a permit holder against a posted business for injuries. What it basically says in the in the sign law is that posting a sign does not change whatever liability the business may or may not already have.

I mean if you think of it...the whole state of TN is a "gun-free" zone since no one (except LEOs) can legally carry without a permit. Is the state liable for preventing you from carrying in a non-posted business because you don't have permit?


TN firearm laws need a good overhaul... The House Republican Caucus has comprised a task force to look at the firearm laws in TN...while I'm not expecting to much to be honest, hopefully some of the changes that need to be made to address the above issues will come from it...

2A Pride said:

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)

Click to expand...

If Federal Law creates a GFZ within the State then your proposed Liability Act should hold the Fed Gov liable for the actions of criminals within the Federal GFZ. My opinion...

absofrigginlutely

Never going to happen. Trying to pass such legislation would open private property owners up to all types of liability. It would move from liability for banning guns, to liability for any injury/assault that occurs to a customer on private property. TN wants business owners to be able to help with it's economy without being fearful of frivolous lawsuits and losing money due to the incompetency or carelessness of others in their place of business. For the most part, businesses are not held liable for injury that occurs to a customer by another customer. You're basically trying to make them liable just because Customer A couldn't carry his/her gun when Customer B attacked them. Good luck with getting support on that one.

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.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking that would be incredibly difficult to prove. How would you show in the Luby's case for example, that things would have turned out differently if patrons had been allowed to OC?

It would move from liability for banning guns, to liability for any injury/assault that occurs to a customer on private property.

Click to expand...

I hate to tell you this, but businesses already are exposed to such liability issues, that's why they carry insurance.

Hell yes!

I HATE having to become a criminal and conceal a weapon in order to protect myself and my family.

SgtScott31 said:

You're basically trying to make them liable just because Customer A couldn't carry his/her gun when Customer B attacked them.

Click to expand...

The business is liable for creating a more dangerous situation (advertising unarmed victims),
as well as doing nothing to mitigate that situation (metal detectors, armed guards in store & parking lot).

MKEgal said:

The business is liable for creating a more dangerous situation (advertising unarmed victims),
as well as doing nothing to mitigate that situation (metal detectors, armed guards in store & parking lot).

Click to expand...

This.

When private property states that they allow no firearms on their property, that is just a welcome sign to criminals, because they know they are safe to do what they will. Why else do the majority of mass-shootings happen on gun-free property like schools?

MKEgal said:

The business is liable for creating a more dangerous situation (advertising unarmed victims),
as well as doing nothing to mitigate that situation (metal detectors, armed guards in store & parking lot).

Click to expand...

That also answers my question about how to prove it, because that right there, if I'm on a jury, I mean, you just won the case.

Isn't the state even more liable though....what about the 95-96% of the residents where the whole state is a no carry zone, since they haven't bought the "right" to carry in this state?

IMO hard to prove a business is liable for posting a sign that only affects 4-5% of it's customers in the first place.

I'm not in favor of it;

As Fallguy pointed out you made the decision to disarm yourself when you chose to go into the business. I am certain that suing the school districts and Post Offices for adhering to the Federal law wouldn't be covered. You also won't get the state, counties or municipalities to acknowledge any liability for courthouses, jails, etc. In fact, most folks would be hard-pressed to name non-governmental institutions where they are "forced" to go with the one exception of being taken by ambulance into a hospital ER which restricts lawful carry.

As for businesses which restrict carry, take your business elsewhere. It's their property and their rules inside their doors. No different than their homes and other property. They've made it clear they don't want your business so why would you go in there with your business anyway?

"Scott Desjarlais"

Sigh. From what I gather, he seems to be one of the most corrupt politicians in office. I hope I am wrong.

I would suggest trying all your representatives, and some 2nd A friendly ones who represent others.

Could you please cite more info regarding Scott Desjarlais? I have only been in Tennessee for a short time (5 months), and don't have much to go on other than his voting record and response to letters I've sent. If you may have some information I am unaware of, I would greatly appreciate you sharing it with us.

Thanks