New CCW Friendly law in Tennessee

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 73ch13, Aug 24, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 73ch13

    73ch13 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    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.
     
  2. MICHAEL T

    MICHAEL T Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    6,011
    Location:
    outback Kentucky
    Looks good to me. Since signs have to FOL in Ky. Don't know how well that would work for us
     
  3. 73ch13

    73ch13 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    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.
     
  4. splattergun

    splattergun Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    2,062
    Location:
    Utah
    Force Of Law
     
  5. razorback2003

    razorback2003 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,231
    The legislature should have spent the time on a bill to remove the force of law behind the signs instead of this silly law.
     
  6. lpsharp88

    lpsharp88 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    Berea, KY
    I assume "to" actually means "no"?
     
  7. Mousegun

    Mousegun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    666
    I have been squawking about that for years. Posting thoughts about it on the TN Firearms Association web site too.

    Let me be the master of my own safety with no restrictions of law here in TN. and I (and all others) would stand a better chance of staying safe than putting the onus of our safety on a proprietor.
     
  8. taliv

    taliv Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    27,627
    i like the bill
     
  9. 73ch13

    73ch13 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    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.
     
  10. Grumulkin

    Grumulkin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,986
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    I'm betting a lot of no weapons signs will come down.
     
  11. steve4102

    steve4102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,458
    Location:
    Minnesota
    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?
     
  12. 73ch13

    73ch13 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    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.
     
  13. 73ch13

    73ch13 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    49
  14. deadin

    deadin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,302
    Location:
    Ocean Shores, WA
    I predict that this will not stand scrutiny in court......
     
  15. The Bushmaster

    The Bushmaster Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    8,066
    Location:
    Ava, Missouri
    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!!
     
  16. 73ch13

    73ch13 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    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.
     
  17. deadin

    deadin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,302
    Location:
    Ocean Shores, WA
    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.
     
  18. 73ch13

    73ch13 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    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.
     
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