Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents

[monkeylizard]

If you see a gun buster sign on the door of a business and turn around and go back to your car and disarm and then continue to go back into said business then you have made a choice, a choice the business owner didn't FORCE you to make nor force you to continue to do business in his establishment. Nothing to do with denying you your rights. Their private property, their rules. With whom you do business is your choice. So to answer your question, they are not responsible for your safety. Only you are.

 

True, as long as they aren't all posted.

[TMF]

Businesses should have absolutely no problem with this law. If gun free zones make people safe, then there are no worries about people being victimized in those gun free zones and suing the posted business, right?

[Oh Shoot]

...

 

All that said, this whole proposed bill about liability if posted is utter crap. Just repeal 39-17-1351 and let's be done with it.

 

Then nobody could carry period unless -1307 were zapped along with it.

 

Or do you mean -1359?

 

- OS

[leroy]

If you see a gun buster sign on the door of a business and turn around and go back to your car and disarm and then continue to go back into said business then you have made a choice, a choice the business owner didn't FORCE you to make nor force you to continue to do business in his establishment. Nothing to do with denying you your rights. Their private property, their rules. With whom you do business is your choice. So to answer your question, they are not responsible for your safety. Only you are.

If the thing we're discussing is finally made law and challenged... I predict this is the argument that will be used... Ken did some very good thinkin here...

leroy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[monkeylizard]

Then nobody could carry period unless -1307 were zapped along with it.

 

Or do you mean -1359?

 

- OS

 

Doh! yes, I meant 1359. Post corrected. Thanks!

Edited January 18, 2016 by monkeylizard

[monkeylizard]

If the thing we're discussing is finally made law and challenged... I predict this is the argument that will be used... Ken did some very good thinkin here...

leroy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Except that same argument was used to support Jim Crow laws and we see how that worked out.

[leroy]

Except that same argument was used to support Jim Crow laws and we see how that worked out.

It don't matter...  A good arguement is a good arguement; regardless of the purpose for which it's used... You don't discard a particular line of thinkin just because it was used to make some case that is either morally wrong or one you don't happen to like...

 

leroy

[monkeylizard]

But you do discard it if you're a lawyer going to use it in court to support a law that's being challenged, when the courts have shown that argument to be less than sound in the past.

Edited January 18, 2016 by monkeylizard

[E4 No More]

And just to further clarify for those who don't understand, the rules DO NOT CHANGE just because you are a business open to the public. It may be open to the public but it is still owned and operated by an individual.

Really? A corporation is an individual?

[leroy]

But you do discard it if you're a lawyer going to use it in court to support a law that's being challenged, when the courts have shown that argument to be less than sound in the past.

 

It's apples and oranges man... Sorry... -- cant buy that one...

leroy

Edited January 18, 2016 by leroy

[E4 No More]

If you see a gun buster sign on the door of a business and turn around and go back to your car and disarm and then continue to go back into said business then you have made a choice, a choice the business owner didn't FORCE you to make nor force you to continue to do business in his establishment. Nothing to do with denying you your rights. Their private property, their rules. With whom you do business is your choice. So to answer your question, they are not responsible for your safety. Only you are.

Wrong, in your scenario you are already on their property. You are liable for anything that happens on your property including the parking lot. If you want to post a huge sign at the entrance to your property saying that you enter at your own risk that's up to you, but I doubt you'd run a successful business.

[E4 No More]

I want to see how the property rights folks fare when they tell a cop that they must disarm to come on their property. :cop:

[Dustbuster]

Hey gang. No worries wal mart stopped selling no wheel gun signs. Things will get better soon!

[300winmag]

How about we just get rid of the 'no gun' signs criminal penalty?  Isn't that the easier solution?  Let the property owner put up the 'no guns' signs, but remove the criminal penalty and turn it into a trespass issue.  Sometimes politicians really make things more complicated than they need to be.  Look at how the park carry bill turned into several pages of garbage when it could have been a clean one line exception.  Also look at these private school and university carry bills that have been proposed for further proof of something that is more complicated than it needs to be.

Edited January 18, 2016 by 300winmag

[DaveTN]

How about we just get rid of the 'no gun' signs criminal penalty?  Isn't that the easier solution?  Let the property owner put up the 'no guns' signs, but remove the criminal penalty and turn it into a trespass issue.  Sometimes politicians really make things more complicated than they need to be.  Look at how the park carry bill turned into several pages of garbage when it could have been a clean one line exception.  Also look at these private school and university carry bills that have been proposed for further proof of something that is more complicated than it needs to be.

If the state wants to force a private business owner to recognize your right to carry; they will have to recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right. Until that happens they don’t have squat to say about it. They don’t want to do that; that’s what complicates it.

It’s already a trespass issue. Try to find someone that has been cited for carrying past a sign. I doubt you will find any; but I bet you can find several that have been given trespass warnings.

Carrying past a sign is a criminal misdemeanor $500 fine only. Trespassing is a criminal misdemeanor that could have jail time attached. Why would you want it to be more serious?

[Omega]

If the state wants to force a private business owner to recognize your right to carry; they will have to recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right. Until that happens they don’t have squat to say about it. They don’t want to do that; that’s what complicates it.

It’s already a trespass issue. Try to find someone that has been cited for carrying past a sign. I doubt you will find any; but I bet you can find several that have been given trespass warnings.

Carrying past a sign is a criminal misdemeanor $500 fine only. Trespassing is a criminal misdemeanor that could have jail time attached. Why would you want it to be more serious?

Well, with how it is now, you break the law once you are inside the posted premises; if they make this a trespass issue then you have to be asked to leave, then you will have to refuse before being subject to arrest.

[nightrunner]

I want to see how the property rights folks fare when they tell a cop that they must disarm to come on their property. :cop:

Get a warrant.

[E4 No More]

Get a warrant.

There are many things cops don't need a warrant for so good luck with that. Also, if you harass them they can surly harass you too only it's more expensive for you.

[macville]

Carrying past a sign is a criminal misdemeanor $500 fine only. Trespassing is a criminal misdemeanor that could have jail time attached. Why would you want it to be more serious?

 

 

Huh? If we dropped -1359, trespassing laws would only come into effect in a business open to the public if you were asked to leave and refused. Plus, the trespassing law is already in effect right now anyway. If you walk past a sign right now and refused to leave they could hit you for trespassing and -1359 right now. I don't see how it's not anything but better to drop the posting law...especially since it doesn't meet the constitutional requirement of preventing crime. The state also might end up like GA and FL where almost no buildings are posted because there's no posting law.

[Oh Shoot]

Huh? If we dropped -1359, trespassing laws would only come into effect in a business open to the public if you were asked to leave and refused. Plus, the trespassing law is already in effect right now anyway. If you walk past a sign right now and refused to leave they could hit you for trespassing and -1359 right now. I don't see how it's not anything but better to drop the posting law...especially since it doesn't meet the constitutional requirement of preventing crime. The state also might end up like GA and FL where almost no buildings are posted because there's no posting law.

 

Main diff is that the responsible person in the establishment would have to actually confront the person, rather than just make a sneaky phone call and not even need to testify.

 

 

- OS

Edited January 19, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[300winmag]

The state wouldn't be forcing private businesses to recognize right to carry by modifying or deleting the 'no gun' sign statute.  If you go into Georgia (well most states honestly), no gun signs do not have any sort of weapons charge issues.  A business owner can still make you leave the property if they discover your weapon, including terminating employees who carry against company policy.  The issue is though a civil issue between the employee or customer and the property owner.  The police do not get involved in that sort of issue unless the gun carrier does not leave when asked. 

 

A property owner in TN could do the same thing and honestly can right now even without a 'no guns' sign.  I just want to see the criminal weapons penalty removed, not force property owners to have to allow guns.  There is a big difference between the two.  That is why I think this state senator's bill is a bad bill because it does not balance property rights with gun carrier's rights.

 

Think about it this way.  Let's say I don't like alcohol and do not want alcohol on my property.  It is not against the law for you to be carrying a six pack of beer on my property, but I can still ask you to remove the beer or leave if I don't like you bringing beer.  It would be silly if there was a 'no beer' sign law and someone could get arrested over carrying beer when all I have to do is ask the person to leave if I see the beer.  That is the way it should be as far as gun carry.

Edited January 19, 2016 by 300winmag

[monkeylizard]

Yep. Let's not add another goofy law to try to correct a goofy law. Let's just get rid of the first one. But then legislators and their attorney buddies would have nothing to do if they made the laws simple.

Edited January 19, 2016 by monkeylizard

[macville]

Main diff is that the responsible person in the establishment would have to actually confront the person, rather than just make a sneaky phone call and not even need to testify.

 

 

Sorry, but I am still, "huh?" With the law as is right now or if we eliminated 1359, cops would still have to be called to make anything even remotely stick. With trespassing, in my understanding, you don't have to confront a person before calling the cops. You can call the cops and they can come tell the person they need to leave. Under either law you can make a "sneaky phone call."

[300winmag]

The difference would be you can't get hit with a weapons charge in Georgia when the police come to a place with a 'no guns' sign.  You would just get hit with trespassing if the police come and you do not leave when asked to leave.  In TN, you could get hit with both a weapons charge for the sign and trespass for failure to leave.

[macville]

The difference would be you can't get hit with a weapons charge in Georgia when the police come to a place with a 'no guns' sign.  You would just get hit with trespassing if the police come and you do not leave when asked to leave.  In TN, you could get hit with both a weapons charge for the sign and trespass for failure to leave.

 

 

Exactly! That's why I don't understand why Oh Shoot is saying that we should just leave 1359 in place. It's far better, and actually aligns the law with state constitution, to remove 1359.