Tennessee Bill creates owner liability for safety in gun-free zones

Tennessee General Assembly ^ | 01/15/2016 | Representative Faison

[Manhattanite]

Breathtaking!

[WildHighlander57]

We need this in all “shall issue” states and in all “open carry” states.

[FunkyZero]

Shoot back if you must, but I have issues with this sort of thing on constitutional grounds. I really am getting tired of people thinking they can force private property owners to bend to their demands. If I see a gun free zone sign and choose to disarm and go inside anyway, I made a choice. His property, his rules, his rights.

I don't want anyone telling me what I allow on my property and I afford the same respect to others... even if I think they ARE a dumbass.

[PA Engineer]

Very good. It is about time we put sanity back in our legislation.

[lightman]

I expect insurance companies to start assessing massive surcharges on businesses that are “gun free zones”.

[Popman]

Excellent....I hope other states legislation’s pick up on this great idea...

[Secret Agent Man]

We have this in Wisconsin.

And if they have the no gun sign up but nobody checking, you can ignore the sign.

[Amendment10]

"Great legislation!"

Sounds good to me.

[Popman]

I really am getting tired of people thinking they can force private property owners to bend to their demands.

I don't see this as a demand, it's making property owners liable for their PC idiotic decisions...

If I go to the movies and want to defend myself if some lunatic goes crazy, the theater owner should be held accountable if I am not allowed to.....

[i_robot73]

HORRIBLE legislation. Who pays on ‘govt property’?? Schools and the like. Or is govt, as usual, ‘exempt’?

A private biz owner has EVERY right to refuse any person, for ANY reason they can dream up. Doesn’t mean one is obligated to patronize said biz.

One is not so lucky when it comes to govt....’obligations and visitations’.

[Arlis]

Fantastic! Needs to be duplicated in every red state! And even some blue ones where the Repubs control both houses - like Virginia.........

[IncPen]

Check this out...

[Boomer]

Been saying this for a long time. All places posted gun free are accepting responsibility for the safety of everyone in their gun free zone and are liable for any damages to person or property therein.

Let’s see how many places want to take that liability on. I hope this goes for any governmental establishment too including the Post Office.

[Organic Panic]

I love it. I’ve been looking for a new state in which to live. Might have to go for a visit and see how the business climate is.

[BlueLancer]

"...His property, his rules, his rights..."

And his responsibility.

This doesn't force anyone to do anything. If they want to make their location a gun-free zone, they are still perfectly entitled to do so. However, by disarming individuals who are authorized by the State to carry and, as a result, are making those individuals incapable of defending themselves, they must .. and should .. assume the responsibility for their defense.

[chaosagent]

I really am getting tired of people thinking they can force private property owners to bend to their demands. If I see a gun free zone sign and choose to disarm and go inside anyway, I made a choice. His property, his rules, his rights.

---

So if you don’t want to disarm, you don’t go in, right?

What if you don’t want to disarm, but have to go in?

What if some guy then starts to shoot up the place?

Who’s responsible for your safety?

[VanShuyten]

” His property, his rules, his rights.”

I also agree with you about private property. However, commercial businesses are required to accept all customers nowadays, and I don’t see why I should be rejected just because I have a permit to carry.

I’m not so clear about the liability of the property owner for acts out of his control though.

[zeugma]

This is exactly what I have been saying is needed for a long time now. If any person or organization prohibits citizens from defending themselves, thehave assumed a duty to protect. Legislation that spells out exactly that duty is overdue. This is something that needs to be brought up before each canidate for political office no matter how high or low, and they should be forced to take a stand on one side or the other. This is exactly the kind of common sense legislation that is sorely needed. Let the victim disarmist state in no uncertain tems why they dont support it.

[gogeo]

If I see a gun free zone sign and choose to disarm and go inside anyway, I made a choice. His property, his rules, his rights.

So...you're saying one class of citizen is responsible for the consequences of his choices, but another (property owner) isn't?

Interesting...

[FunkyZero]

I do understand your point, but I also disagree that private businesses should have to allow ANYthing that they don't want. I don't think they should be sued into oblivion for not baking gay cookies, and I don't think they should be coerced into allowing guns on their property if that is what they choose.

These aren't government buildings or services (in which case there should be NO provision to allow them to ban firearms). The way I see it, you either believe in private property rights, or you don't. Trying to play the middle makes us no better than those on the other side.