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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Jul 4, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DeepSouth
    • Contributing Member

    DeepSouth Random Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,450
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie (Ala)
    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.
     
  2. ATN082268

    ATN082268 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2014
    Messages:
    101
    Are you advocating a person should ignore "gun free" signs? Some "gun free" signs carry the weight of law. Also, see my comments below.


    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?
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2016
  3. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    11,739
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    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?
     
  4. Ellsnjel

    Ellsnjel Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Florida
    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.
     
  5. ATN082268

    ATN082268 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2014
    Messages:
    101
    I read it through again and I agree it is a little too broad :)
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2016
  6. DeepSouth
    • Contributing Member

    DeepSouth Random Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,450
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie (Ala)
    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: 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. :scrutiny:
     
  7. Bang!

    Bang! Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    572
    Location:
    Mid TN
    @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.
     
  8. ATN082268

    ATN082268 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2014
    Messages:
    101
    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.
     
  9. Bang!

    Bang! Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    572
    Location:
    Mid TN
    Where in the Bill did you get those parameters?

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

    Maybe I missed it?
     
  10. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    11,739
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    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).

     
  11. Schwing

    Schwing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,265
    Location:
    Layton Utah
    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.
     
  12. Bang!

    Bang! Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    572
    Location:
    Mid TN
    Thanks, you're a big help.
     
  13. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,500
    Location:
    Arkansas
    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.
     
  14. razorback2003

    razorback2003 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,231
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice