New CCW Friendly law in Tennessee

Sorry. I posted the wrong link last time. Basically the law makes businesses who restrict firearms on their premises responsible for the safety of any CCW holders on their property. They would therefore be held liable for any situations that the CCW holder could have protected themselves from if they had been carrying.

Link to actual text off Tennessee gov website:
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/SB1736.pdf


PDF on Tapatalk:
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57be3661d0802/SB1736.pdf


-Safety is no accident, unless you accidentally leave the safety on when you intend to shoot.

FOL?

I just sent this over to our reps in AZ asking to propose something similar for us.

-Safety is no accident, unless you accidentally leave the safety on when you intend to shoot.

I saw an article once that stated the reason for a good number of those no gun signs has nothing to do with the personal preference of the business, but the insurance company that insures them. The insurance requires them to post the sign to reduce liability. Maybe with a law like this, the insurance companies will see an increased liability and change their underwriting. I'll have to locate that article for yous again.

-Safety is no accident, unless you accidentally leave the safety on when you intend to shoot.

steve4102 said:

Have you verified this "article"? Did you find any evidence that insurance companies can and do, require companies to ban a perfectly Legal activity, such as carrying a firearm?

Click to expand...

I'm trying to relocate the article still. I sure do believe they can legally restrict that though. Insurance companies are private and can place all sorts of liability based restrictions on the insured.

Prime example: certain insurance companies will not insure your home if you own a pit bull or a Rottweiler because they believe it increases liability. Car insurance companies will drop you in most cases on your private insurance if you use your vehicle for any commercial purposes.

There's really nothing to stop them from placing certain restrictions on businesses as well as long as the state approves their underwriting.

-Safety is no accident, unless you accidentally leave the safety on when you intend to shoot.

I found one such example in Kansas schools where their insurance company threatened to drop them if they allowed concealed carry teachers. This one is from the New York Times, somewhat reputable news source.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/07/0...to-arm-employees-hit-hurdle-on-insurance.html

-Safety is no accident, unless you accidentally leave the safety on when you intend to shoot.

The Bushmaster said:

Not a good law as it will cause lots of frivolous law suits by non CCW people. Be smart about it. Concealed is concealed. If you don't like their business ethics. DON'T SHOP THERE!!

Click to expand...

The law actually still protects them from non permit holders. The actual wording states permit holder therefore only permit holders have a case.

-Safety is no accident, unless you accidentally leave the safety on when you intend to shoot.

deadin said:

So, under the law a business has to take liability only for permit holders?
I think a decent lawyer for a non-permit holder injured in the store will tear this apart in court. Something along the lines of "equal protection under the law" or providing benefits to a certain class of people and withholding them from others.

This puts permit-holders right up there with certain minorities, LGBTs, people with disabilities, etc. I don't think the Feds are ready for this.

Click to expand...

They would only be responsible if they forced the permit holder to disarm, thereby possibly putting them in a dangerous situation whereas normally they would have a defense. Non permit holders are excluded because they are not being stripped of any protection they had.

If they were worried about protection, then they should go through the training to get certified as a permit holder and take charge for their own protection.

The law also puts the liability on the permit holders themselves to provide for their own protection if the business does not post signs. I just don't see it being a legal issue for non permit holders as they are not being disarmed, so nothing changes for them. The business doesn't need to compensate for an issue they caused.

It's sort of like in AZ where we can't carry in gov buildings, but all the gov buildings are required to safekeep the weapons for us during our visit. They are not required to safekeep anything else, just weapons. I don't see people suing over gov buildings not locking up purses.

Sure you may get someone who gets injured by a shooter or robbery incident, who does not carry/has no permit, sues a business for damages; and they may have good ground for it, but it won't be under this law.

-Safety is no accident, unless you accidentally leave the safety on when you intend to shoot.