'Gun Free' Zone Tennessee Business Liable for Disarming Concealed Carry Holders

It seems to me many here are of the opinion multiple wrongs make a right. While I agree many other things mentioned In this thread are wrong I don't think doing more things wrong help anything, although I can see the argument of "do what works" to get the desired outcome.

To me the means are just as important, as the end. But that seems to be a very uncommon view in today's society.

I suppose at the end of the day it only matters what the citizens of TN think about the law, and I'd bet they support it.

DeepSouth said:

Their posting of a sticker never harmed anyone, criminals harmed them. When someone voluntarily disarms they know the possible consequences, if they're not comfortable with that risk then should remain armed. Certainly don't disarm then surfer those possible consequences and blame the business owner.

Click to expand...

Are you advocating a person should ignore "gun free" signs? Some "gun free" signs carry the weight of law. Also, see my comments below.

DeepSouth said:

I just see it like this, you shouldn't legislate to hold someone responsible for someone else's actions. In this case the criminal is responsible for the situation and a gun owner who disarmed is responsible for his defenseless state.....it was voluntary after all, he chose to disarm and enter the business.

Click to expand...

First, the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone, regardless of whether a particular business or organization likes it or not. You can't pick and choose what parts of the U.S. Constitution you want to comply with. Second, you make it sound like it is a person's fault for whatever happens to them as a result for complying with a business' "gun free" sign.

Although there seems to be a 2nd Amendment issue as well, the focus seems to be on holding a business owner responsible for their actions as a result of putting up "gun free" signs. I'm sure there are cases where you could say that a customer visiting a business was purely optional, like eating out but what about other instances, like when you are about to run out of gas? And what about all the employees at all those "gun free" businesses?

Stupid law. Enacted for good reasons, but made with stupid parameters. Sounds like free insurance for any people with a concealed carry permit who is not carrying a gun. If they get mugged or otherwise injured by a bad guy, they need only claim they were on the way to some business where concealed carry was not allowed and that business is now responsible for their well being.

I think it's a reasonable law. Companies can still post their own property as they wish. Now they are legally responsible if someone suffers harm because of that posting.

Click to expand...

What will be the standard for this. Can a person prove that having a gun would have precluded them from harm?

This isn't about private property rights. If it were about ones place of residence that would be different but it is a law that applies to businesses open to the public. A business open to the public doesn't have unlimited discretion to who they do business with. That's why segregation is no longer legal.

This law is perfectly reasonable it still allows a business to prohibit carrying firearms, just that then they must provide security if they choose to do so.

Double Naught Spy said:

If they get mugged or otherwise injured by a bad guy, they need only claim they were on the way to some business where concealed carry was not allowed and that business is now responsible for their well being.

Click to expand...

I read it through again and I agree it is a little too broad

Are you advocating a person should ignore "gun free" signs? Some "gun free" signs carry the weight of law. Also, see my comments below.

Click to expand...

If the sign does not carry the weight of law, then sure ignore it, I've got no problem with that.

BUT to answer your question, no I'm not promoting ignoreing them. I am promoting staying armed and walking by the no gun sign on the way to another business. The fact is they can't make you disarm, partly because they can't make you do business with them. Your disarming is entirely voulentairly, as in not required, you don't have to... So if you do and something bad happens, just remember you didn't have to, it was your choice!

First, the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone, regardless of whether a particular business or organization likes it or not. You can't pick and choose what parts of the U.S. Constitution you want to comply with. Second, you make it sound like it is a person's fault for whatever happens to them as a result for complying with a business' "gun free" sign.

Click to expand...

First: That's not true, is it a violation of the 1st amendment that THR want let us have a politics section? Are they, just picking which parts of constitution they want to comply with?

Second: If someone voluntarily disarms and something bad happens to them it is certainly their fault that they are not armed...It was their choice.
Is it their fault that an incident happens? Of course not, that'd be the criminal's fault. I just want people to own their own choices.




On a side note I can't help but wonder if the TN state buildings are gun free zones. Something tells me you can't walk in the TN capital building while carrying, so are they responsible for my security? I smell the strong odor of hypocrisy with this one. But thats what government does all to often, we'll pass this law that you have to abide by but we don't.

@DeepSouth

Here, http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Fiscal/SB1736.pdf , read it. That'll answer your "side note". Should clear your nose of hypocrisy odors.

On a side note, the smell of hypocrisy is strong around here.

DeepSouth said:

First: That's not true, is it a violation of the 1st amendment that THR want let us have a politics section? Are they, just picking which parts of constitution they want to comply with?

Click to expand...

Everyone is still subject to Constitutional laws whether in a restaurant, internet board, etc. Obviously, some will be more relevant, for example, to a restaurant, than an internet board. And your comparison isn't accurate for a few reasons. I'm sure there are more but I'll list the ones which come to mind.

First, no right is absolute. Second, in a "gun free" business for example, you have your 2nd Amendment right completely abridged versus a partial abridgement, for example, of 1st Amendment of free speech on an internet board. Third, the damages resulting from being shot to death at a business always far outweigh any damages, either singularly or cumulatively, from any kind of infringement of free speech on an internet board.

Double Naught Spy said:

Stupid law. Enacted for good reasons, but made with stupid parameters. Sounds like free insurance for any people with a concealed carry permit who is not carrying a gun. If they get mugged or otherwise injured by a bad guy, they need only claim they were on the way to some business where concealed carry was not allowed and that business is now responsible for their well being.



What will be the standard for this. Can a person prove that having a gun would have precluded them from harm?

Click to expand...

Where in the Bill did you get those parameters?

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Fiscal/SB1736.pdf

Maybe I missed it?

Where in the Bill did you get those parameters?

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Fiscal/SB1736.pdf

Maybe I missed it?

Click to expand...

Where there's your problem. You assumed that a summary "fiscal note" was the law. You aren't reading the law. There is a huge difference. The Fiscal Review Committee isn't interesting in the nitty gritty of the law, except where that pertains to fiscal matters.

https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB1736/2015 (click on "Download" to download and to read).

(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.

Click to expand...

There was a time when I disagreed with any restrictions on business owners as far as who they wanted to serve and how they serve them. IMHO, the public ultimately makes the decision as to whether a business survives or not. If they don't like the ethics or practices of a business, they can shop elsewhere. However, whether fortunately or unfortunately, in the last few decades the supreme court has ruled on several cases that clearly spell out that businesses cannot discriminate on many levels.

These rulings have changed my views somewhat. If I business must do business with you or keep you as an employee regardless of your race, religion, sexual orientation or gender, I don't see that they should have any legal grounds to deny you the right of self protection without being willing to account for your safety while you are on the premises. Businesses are already on the hook for your safety in some regards while you are on their property. Slip on a wet tile and you almost always have a lawsuit these days.

If those on the left want to violate the rights of business and property owners and tell them who they must do business with then, IMHO, those same people should not have a problem with businesses being forced to respect a person's fundamental right of self protection or be liable for any harm that comes to you because they deny you that right.

This is 100% my opinion.

Double Naught Spy said:

Where there's your problem. You assumed that a summary "fiscal note" was the law. You aren't reading the law. There is a huge difference. The Fiscal Review Committee isn't interesting in the nitty gritty of the law, except where that pertains to fiscal matters.

https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB1736/2015 (click on "Download" to download and to read).

Click to expand...

Thanks, you're a big help.

This law doesn't deny any business the right to declare they are a gun free zone. It just makes them responsible if denying someone the ability to defend themselves causes harm.

The legislature would have been better at spending the time to remove the criminal penalty for carrying past a no gun. Most states treat that as a trespass issue, but Tennessee unfortunately treats it as a misdemeanor crime. Hopefully that can be changed next year with the help of the NRA and other gun rights groups. If we had that fixed for us, we would have pretty good carry rights here.