SB1736 Active 07/01/16?

[BillOReitz_II]

Does the law making owners of posted properties liable for compensable damages to a HCP holder go into effect July 1?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[BillOReitz_II]

I know it passed, but there was a amendment whose legaleez makes my head hurt. Anyone understand it's current incarnation?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[monkeylizard]

The bill was amended. The amendment completely replaced the original bill. The one that passed does the exact opposite of the original and goes into effect July 1st. It protects property owner/operator from all civil liabilities if they don't post, other than in the case of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/SA0692.pdf

Edit for correction. Oh Shoot is correct.

Edited June 29, 2016 by monkeylizard

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, monkeylizard said:

The bill was amended. The amendment completely replaced the original bill. The one that passed does the exact opposite of the original and goes into effect July 1st. It protects the posting entity from all civil liabilities, other than in the case of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/SA0692.pdf

No -- though it is completely different from how it started,  it protects the business that does NOT post.   Read it again.

"... shall be immune from civil liability .. based on failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons..."

- OS

[GlockSpock]

Thoughts on places of employment? Could this theoretically remove any liability from an employer that does not prohibit its employees from carrying?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeylizard]

16 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:

Thoughts on places of employment? Could this theoretically remove any liability from an employer that does not prohibit its employees from carrying?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that OS has corrected my inability to read, I'd say that if your employer doesn't post and the place gets shot up, you can't sue them (negligence etc. is another matter). Employment rules have no bearing. So whether they prohibit guns or not via employee policies, you can't sue them if they don't post and you get harmed.

 

Translation: This bill is worthless.

[Oh Shoot]

34 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

Now that OS has corrected my inability to read, I'd say that if your employer doesn't post and the place gets shot up, you can't sue them (negligence etc. is another matter). Employment rules have no bearing. So whether they prohibit guns or not via employee policies, you can't sue them if they don't post and you get harmed.

 

Translation: This bill is worthless.

Well, it started out as making a place that DID post liable for harm to anyone who could NOT carry there.

Then the amendment made it so that anyplace that did NOT post was NOT liable for same. Not exactly the opposite, but a totally different emphasis.

But what it does is still beg the question as to whether a biz which DOES post CAN be liable. Now, according to attorneys' opinions I've read here and elsewhere,  case law would say they can not, unless they had knowledge of a quite specific threat and failed to take measures to attempt to thwart it, but then again I don't think that has ever been applied specifically to this issue, so I dunno.

- OS

Edited June 29, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

50 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:

Thoughts on places of employment? Could this theoretically remove any liability from an employer that does not prohibit its employees from carrying?

Don't see how it doesn't apply, as refers to " A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property..."

- OS

[BillOReitz_II]

Thank you, OS, and everyone who wised me up on this.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[300winmag]

Basically the politicians went about this the complicated and backward way instead of just removing the misdemeanor fine for no gun signs.  Of course they messed up the whole college carry law too so this is not surprising.

[GlockSpock]

Don't see how it doesn't apply, as refers to " A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property..."

- OS

Well, I guess I was looking at it from this standpoint. Case in point, my employer does not post so customers can carry. However, employees cannot carry or risk termination.

This law means that they cannot be held liable since that they do not post. However, although it would be legal to carry there I would risk termination.

So what I wonder about is whether an employer would no longer feel necessary to restrict employees carrying whereas now many restrict employees carrying for theoretical potential liability.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

54 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:

....So what I wonder about is whether an employer would no longer feel necessary to restrict employees carrying whereas now many restrict employees carrying for theoretical potential liability.

Sounds "logical", but of course most firearm restriction decisions aren't.

- OS

[chances R]

Just discussed this with a fellow employee today.  My interpretation is no post = no liability........employee is not included because of previous discussions regarding the parking lot bill.  Posted = acceptance of liability to include to and from car, if for example, that is where I kept my gun but did not carry it due to the posting.   This line of thought also would lend some credibility to the lawsuit with the city of Knoxville and the fairgrounds in a roundabout way. 

[Oh Shoot]

38 minutes ago, chances R said:

Just discussed this with a fellow employee today.  My interpretation is no post = no liability........employee is not included because of previous discussions regarding the parking lot bill.  Posted = acceptance of liability to include to and from car, if for example, that is where I kept my gun but did not carry it due to the posting.   This line of thought also would lend some credibility to the lawsuit with the city of Knoxville and the fairgrounds in a roundabout way. 

Yeah, but his point was that biz doesn't want to bar customers from carrying inside, only employees, so a 1359 sign isn't the solution, only company policy is.

- OS

Edited June 29, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[chances R]

Yes, I agree.  Therefore in regard to employees, not applicable due to employee/employer relationship.  Didn't expect anything more out of this legislative body.  Maybe if say a nurse by example was attacked in the parking garage and she was unarmed due to policy, possibly an attorney may successfully argue her vulnerability by being 'disarmed' by that employee policy.  It would seem the average person visiting a hospital would thus be protected by this new law, one way or the other. 

Edited June 29, 2016 by chances R

[Oh Shoot]

18 minutes ago, chances R said:

Yes, I agree.  Therefore in regard to employees, not applicable due to employee/employer relationship.  Didn't expect anything more out of this legislative body.  Maybe if say a nurse by example was attacked in the parking garage and she was unarmed due to policy, possibly an attorney may successfully argue her vulnerability by being 'disarmed' by that employee policy.  It would seem the average person visiting a hospital would thus be protected by this new law, one way or the other. 

Don't see how. Law only applies to places which do NOT ban carry as per 1359, and all hospitals do. Folks (with permit) can only have their heaters in their vehicles on posted properties (including employees).

There's no "protection" involved with the statute at all, just whether one can sue or not after the fact. Clearly, can not sue an unposted property, maybe can sue a posted one, but if so, this statute doesn't change that one way or the other.

- OS

Edited June 29, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[chances R]

So with hospitals posted, would one have a cause to sue if accosted in the parking lot, 1- if an employee or 2- private citizen?  I can't say with certainty but it would seem so because the hospital IS posted.  If not posted, then there would be no justification...right?

[Oh Shoot]

20 minutes ago, chances R said:

So with hospitals posted, would one have a cause to sue if accosted in the parking lot, 1- if an employee or 2- private citizen?  I can't say with certainty but it would seem so because the hospital IS posted. 

Nothing in TCA says the hospital would be culpable. However, that's how the statute began, to state exactly that. See my previous post regarding attorneys' opinions.

Quote

If not posted, then there would be no justification...right?

That's exactly what this statute says. But I'm sure it's more to exclude biz from suits by the general public, not by the pistol packers.

- OS

Edited June 29, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[chances R]

And we are paying these legislators to waste good paper, ink, and bandwidth........

[quietguy]

5 minutes ago, chances R said:

And we are paying these legislators to waste good paper, ink, and bandwidth........

Yep, that is a pretty good summary. 

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, chances R said:

And we are paying these legislators to waste good paper, ink, and bandwidth........

 

1 hour ago, quietguy said:

Yep, that is a pretty good summary. 

Well, I dunno. If I had a biz and wanted to allow carry, it would be nice to know that if either of you guys shot somebody in there I wouldn't be liable for it.

- OS

edit: the more I think about it, the more I actually like it -- I'm inclined to agree with CZ9mm, that it might encourage more businesses to allow carry, as they know they wouldn't be liable for anything arising from that. And a biz that posts has no such assurance, at least under the written statutes.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[chances R]

Well yes I am all for that, but as you mentioned that reason was not the genesis of the initial bill.

 

[Oh Shoot]

21 minutes ago, chances R said:

Well yes I am all for that, but as you mentioned that reason was not the genesis of the initial bill.

 

Well, I have no credentials to really opine, but I don't really see how liability due to either posting or due to not posting could be logically asserted,  since either option is completely licit under state law, so not at all sure the first version would have withstood legal scrutiny.  I just see the emergent version as a further "assurance" to those who allow carry, and I like it since I'm on that side of the issue.

- OS

Edited June 30, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[quietguy]

2 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

  

Edited June 30, 2016 by quietguy

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Apparently it is not clear what actually got passed....here is what some are reporting......http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/want-a-gun-free-zone-tennessee-says-thats-on-you-literally

 

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”

If those citizens get injured because they were stripped of their Second Amendment rights, the new law – which goes into effect Friday – allows gun owners to sue the person who set up the “gun free zone.”

Bearing Arms puts it in layman’s terms: Any permit holder injured as a result of being stripped of their right to self-defense, and their handgun, in a posted gun-free zone can file a lawsuit within two years of the event as long as they meet the following requirements:

• were authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident
• prohibited from carrying a firearm because of a gun-free sign
• the property owner was not required to be posted by state or federal law and posted by choice

So if a grocery store in Tennessee banned guns on its property and a robber, or a bear, or a rabid mongoose barged in and killed or injured someone who has a carry permit but were prohibited from carrying his or her gun, they could sue the grocery store owner for damages.

“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,” the bill states.

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.”

This is a great idea and other states should adopt a similar law. If you’re going to disarm Americans, then you bear responsibility for what happens to them.

Awesome.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Cruel Hand Luke