Missouri HB 170

[supernac]

If you live in Missouri please send your state rep a message asking them to support HB 170:

http://www.statesurge.com/bills/441151-hb170-missouri

HB 170 -- BUSINESS PREMISES SAFETY ACT
SPONSOR: Cox
COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted "do pass" by the Special Committee on
General Laws by a vote of 8 to 4.
This bill establishes the Business Premises Safety Act which
prohibits business owners and operators from restricting any
person from lawfully possessing a firearm in a motor vehicle
except in a vehicle owned or leased by the business. Business
owners, operators, merchants, and shopkeepers do not have a duty
to guard against the criminal act of a third party unless they
know or have reason to know that the acts are occurring or are
about to occur that could pose imminent injury to a person or
that the same criminal acts have occurred on the premises within
the prior 24 months and is likely to occur again. In either
case, it will be their duty to use reasonable care to protect
against the acts.
FISCAL NOTE: No impact on state funds in FY 2010, FY 2011, and
FY 2012.
PROPONENTS: Supporters say that the bill clarifies the right to
possess firearms and also reintroduces the common law requirement
that a person is generally not responsible for the criminal acts
of a third party. The bill rejects the totality of the
circumstances test for tort liability in order to provide clear
guidance to property owners.
Testifying for the bill were Representative Cox; Missouri
Retailers Association; Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
and National Rifle Association of America.
OPPONENTS: Those who oppose the bill say that it is necessary to
establish specific standards requiring businesses to protect the
public. The legislation eliminates mode of doing business
liability in which businesses ignore illegal activities such as
drugs and prostitution in order to profit from those engaging in
these practices.
Testifying against the bill was John Davidson.

 

[Methos]

I disagree with this, as your post failed to list other statements within it that specifically state that employees are still not allowed to leave their weapon in their vehicle. It also makes it so that the business isn't responsible for the safety of those within it. In other words, if they have a legal notice up that bars firearms and a crime is committed within that business, then they are not held responsible. I disagree with that. In my opinion, if they require you to leave your weapon outside of the business, then that should indicate that the business has now taken responsibility for your safety.

 

[el diablo]

well put Methos.

 

[supernac]

I didn’t see the part about "persons" not being employee’s. Strangely I thought "persons" meant everybody . I was really hoping this would prevent "no guns in vehicle" policies at work.

 

[SomeDude]

This bill is complete junk. The Missouri concealed carry law already says that you can keep a gun in your car even if you're at a school, post office, police station, etc.
Even in private businesses with "No Guns" signs they can only ask you to leave if they see your weapon. If you don't leave the problems start. (Hence, CONCEALED)So I really don't see the need for this law as it really doesn't do anything except hold harmless business for not doing anything.
Of course, I am a law abiding concealed carry permit holder and never, never, ever, not once ever have carried my gun into a store with a "No Gun" sign. Ever.

 

[supernac]

The problem is that employers can tell you not to carry in you vehicle, assuming you park on their property they can fire you for doing it if they somehow find out. If the definition of "persons" were change to mean everybody, this would effectively be a "guns at work" law that other states have passed. The language of the bill could very easily change between now and the governors desk (if it gets that far). The NRA is backing this; I’m wondering (hoping) this is what they are planning to do.