Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Jul 4, 2016.
I think that's insane, it's their business/property and they should be able to run it how they want... If you don't feel safe in a building that's a "gun free zone" then don't go in! I mean really, if it's that big of a deal then don't go in, don't give them your business...
Hasnt the SCOTUS has ruled that Leo aren't responsible for your protection? But now we're going to tell a business man that he is.... Just because he put a sticker on his door....
This is nuts, at least that's my 2¢ which is worth just what you paid for it.
I think is this is a huge mistake. I'm a supporter of private property rights and I believe that a business owner should be allowed to ban firearms on their property with the only repercussion being loss of income from customers going elsewhere. I really hope this is challenged in court at some point and overturned.
I'd be happy with a law that simply eliminates civil liability for businesses that don't prohibit their customers from carrying.
That would get rid of the "my insurance won't allow it" excuse that some business owners give.
I think it's absolutely asinine.
Ridiculous and unwarranted.
I see what they were trying to accomplish. Basically Tennessee is saying, if you don't want guns in your business, take your business to another state. Our citizen's safety and constitutional rights come first.
It is a gesture since there's nothing in the crime data indicating a problem in any case.
The positive may be that a business might not casually prohibit permit holders and put thought into the decision.
TN was targeted in a gunbuster campaign that sold many businesses on posting prohibiting permit holders. State 2A groups mobilized and persuaded most of the businesses to remove the gunbuster signs. The ones I talked to where my family had been frequent customers each said an attractive young woman or young man came in and spun them the classic Anti tails and how it would protect them from liability if anything did happen and then put up the pre-printed signs for them. These were mostly local restaurants and businesses. When I explained that they were telling me and my family that they didn't trust us and the others that had gone through the over $150 expense, time out of our busy schedules for training and a background check just to get the permit and that we were the least prone to commit a crime and almost uniformly had more disposable income for their business if we could afford all that time and expense AND that by telling permitted folks they couldn't come in with their firearm they forced them to leave them in their cars where they might be stolen instead of securely on their person they recognized they were trying to keep the wrong people out of their business. Almost all of them took down the signs.
Then we saw the Chattanooga USN terrorist attack where the Recruiters were unarmed. That caused a statewide backlash.
Follow all that with what we bring up as an issue of liability and insurance being the reason a business may prohibit permit holders and this law is supposed to counterbalance those arguments.
A "gun-free" zone with metal detectors at entry points and professional security (like most court houses today) is a safe as you can get. The Colorado theater shooter showed the effectiveness of a gun free zone without any effort to insure that no one could enter the building carrying arms. In Florida, a business owner can post a "no guns inside" warning at their discretion. Should someone choose to ignore the warning and it is discovered that they were armed, they can be asked to leave the premises. Only after being asked to leave and refusing to do so can they be charged with trespass. I do feel that it should be the business owner's responsibility to protect their customers if they limit their ability to do so for themselves.Personally, I avoid these places. I am often struck with the irony of going into the FedEx office (or the Post Office) to pick up a gun where there are several gun-free zone signs.
It's their private property, if they don't want gun permit holders carrying guns, or people with purple hair, or people of ambiguous gender, or wrong skin shade, it's their private property. Businesses have barred Kardashians.
Except, they claim to be businesses open to the public. If I had a business open to the public, I would feel obligated to compromise my claim to privacy and admit folks I would not necessarily have as house guests (and who wouldn't have me either). Maybe they ought to be required to become members-only clubs with well-vetted key cards required for entry and no carry permit holders allowed.
These no guns allowed signs are an effective barrier only to gun permit holders, the only folks who pay attention to them.
For awhile the local newspaper would report the carry permit status of persons involved in gun-related crime -- they were not permit holders.
Given that guns are often stolen from unattended vehicles and given that gun permit holders rarely commit crimes, the requirement requiring them to leave their guns in their cars could be a greater public safety problem than allowing them to discretely carry their guns concealed.
I remember when state law required me to disarm when entering convenience stores to pay for gas because the stores had beer lurking in their coolers; it was awkward unholstering the gun, securing it in a hiding place in the car, etc. and left the gun vulnerable to theft. But the legislature had decided alcohol and guns together under the same roof was a toxic mix. Later they relented and decided drinking while armed was a real problem.
In my lifetime I have seen gun restrictions fall because the hypothetical behind them was proven false.
That fact (LE is not responsible for protecting individuals) has been used in court to challenge gun bans by governments; why should it not be an effective argument against gun bans in businesses open to the public unless the business accepts responsibly for protecting individual customers? The law does not require them to take their signs down; if they want to bar guns they should be responsible for providing protection to all their customers beyond just a sign that is effective only in turning away the legally armed citizen.
I live in a Chicago suburb and frequently see no gun signs. It's not much of an issue as there's almost always a competing business that does not discriminate, with the exception of places such as schools, doctor's offices, etc. where they are not allowed by law. I can see it being a problem in small towns or rural areas where there's only one bank or grocery store and you don't have another option. Given that with very few exceptions mass shootings occur in gun free zones, I can understand wanting to hold a business owner who has a monopoly in his area responsible for prohibiting his customers from defending themselves for what are usually no legitimate reasons.
This may seem extreme but what about the new laws just passed into law in California? Are they not as, if not more extreme in the reverse? As far as such things go when things get stirred up the pendulum swings to restrictive and back to permissive a lot of times before it settles to a norm. These trying days the ANTI sentiment is being met with equally permissive (sometimes over reactive) response. I see that many more US citizens are voting for the 2A in droves with the purchasing of firearms/ammo in record numbers. If they can manage to transfer this to results of the next election then the RKBA will stand strong again. Ask Bill Clinton what the 94 AWB did to the Dems. IMHO they are being stupid to try to run on this platform in this day and age. The 60's and that peaceful utopia that was promised by some is not even on the radar in todays anger filled world. I see bumper stickers on all the Toyota Prius around here that say "War is not the answer". Well IMHO neither is giving in to the terrorists and tyrants and such because you think that they will leave you alone if you do. We need the 2A and it's grassroots clout/support to secure our nation as a free one into the future. Remember our government works FOR its citizens. Then and only then do the First and all the other amendments have teeth as well. Educate about RKBA in a clear, truthful, and rational manner and we will win the end game. That is what the antis have been trying to do using emotion for years, with poor success I might add.
Off the soap box.
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.
I think that is reasonable arguement one could make to the business owner in an effort to get him remove the gun free zone, I absolutely do not think it's an argument to make to a legislator that will force liability on someone else.
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.
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.
I support the measure since it pushes the debate in our favor. We need to stop declaring victory when the antis only get part of what they want. The Federal govt is not a private property owner so they should not have the option to ban all buildings. Each one should prove a reasonable necessity. Courts and congress or buildings with armed guards should be able to ban. Post offices and national parks should allow the rightful owners the ability to use as they see fit. This current law may not be perfect but it is progress. State campus carry just changed for employees as well.
A business is responsible for providing a safe environment for its patrons. If a person slips on the sidewalk in front of a business because the business owner didn't shovel the snow, the business is liable.
I am a veterinarian. If someone gets bitten by their own dog while in the clinic, the clinic is liable. I'm not saying its fair, but that's the way it is.
When looked at from that point of view it is a perfectly reasonable law. No rights are being encroached upon -- a business owner still has the right to not allow firearms on their property. However, just like other sorts of injuries, a business is liable if it occurs on their property.
TN is pushing against the stupidity of "Gun Free Zones". I'm proud of my home state and the direction we are going with the 2A. Don't see how anyone can be pro 2A and pro "Gun Free Zone". You people here do realize bad guys don't obey laws?? Sock puppets? Meat puppets?
Concerning business liability. I've been sued several times. Neither time was justice served. Legality was served but justice was crucified. There are some serious fairness problems in our legal system. But in this case, a business simply has to do nothing. As in, "Don't infringe!".
You want WHAT?? written on your cake?
Don't cry for California (recent threads) and bash TN. You cant have it both ways. TN declared "Gun Free Zones" as bull-crap and everyone that is in anyway pro 2A should be clapping and shouting victory from their rooftops.
Just a small rant.
A business or organization that denies people the tools to defend themselves while, at the same time, completely absolves themselves of the responsibility for their workers and customers as a result of that policy, upholds the ultimate in unaccountability...
I never have a problem with a "No Firearms" sign. Unless there is a magnetometer or security person with a wand, I just ignore them.
Let's face it, if you can't see the firearm, is it really there??
Yes, I still follow the law re: schools, courthouses, jails, and Federal Buildings. The rest? If you can't see it am I really carrying?
I'm not pro gun free zones but I am pro private property rights. As in the government shouldn't be able to tell private property owners what they have to allow/can't allow on their property. Look at this strictly from a property issue point.
Not to mention all this will really do is make liability insurance rates for businesses in TN go up. This is just sillyness.
Look at this strictly from an individual rights issue. TN property owners didn't lose any rights. They just became culpable when they deny me my rights.
I understand what your saying concerning property rights. It's a crying shame this had to be legislated. All laws should should start with, "We shouldn't have to make a law that says this, but....."
Gun free zones are becoming killing fields for the threats we have today. Those threats are going to get worse and more common. It's irresponsible to put up signs that say, "safe target rich environment here", for those that would do us harm. TN just put up some more big signs that say, "We reserve the right to fight back".
Higher insurance for gun free zones? That's another one in the win column!
Hahahah, This ain't California, y'all! Apologies to our friends in California.
It can be seen, you just aren't aware that it can. Some people have been trained to 'make' carriers, and not all of them are LEO's.
We have a strong legislative body right now even though the governor did sign on with bloomberg when he was still Knoxvilles mayor. He claimed to regret that when he ran for governor but it didn't matter either way. This law simply tries to reverse the obvious insanity of the antis. Silly is ignoring the fact that victim zones are predominantly gun free. I prefer that anyone seeking defenseless victim zones just stay out of TN. The public had a hard time understanding how a military recruiting office in Chattanooga was a soft defenseless target for a opportunistic jihadist. At least we can start reducing the victim zones. If we save just one life, it is worth it.
i'm 100% in favor of the law
i understand the conflict with property rights, but given the political winds that say a business owner must make cakes they don't want to, and there's no religious exclusions for abortions etc... then business also can't discriminate against the 2A.
it would be great if some rights trumped others, but they don't seem to these days, so we should at least be consistent.
Separate names with a comma.