Tennessee law combatting "gun free zone" businesses

jc1240 · Jun 29, 2016

Tennessee's new law starting on Friday may help eliminate "gun free zones" in the state. It would allow a permit holder to file suit if they are injured by a criminal and were disarmed due to a "no guns" sign with the following conditions:

They were authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident
They were prohibited from carrying a firearm because of a gun-free sign
The property owner was not required to be post a gun free zone by state or federal law, but instead posted by choice

http://dennismichaellynch.com/see-how-tennessee-is-discouraging-gun-free-zones/

Link to the bill: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/SB1736.pdf

I guess this takes care of the situation where it's not illegal to ignore the sign itself, but the shop owner has you kicked out for arrested for "trespassing" if you do carry.

CrazySanMan · Jun 29, 2016

Awesome!

molonlabe · Jun 29, 2016

Brilliant.

dist1646 · Jun 29, 2016

Tennessee is next to the top of my places to move if I can ever leave the communist peoples republic of Maryland! Just wish my mother had not sold the family farm down there!

Brooklyn · Jun 29, 2016

Good.

It's the only way to keep liberals out.

Learn from what happened in the east..and the loopy coast..

Constitutional carry.... the courts have forced us to to oppose all lic of any type since they will not apply elevated scrutiny.

PowPow · Jun 29, 2016

dist1646 said:
Tennessee is next to the top of my places to move if I can ever leave the communist peoples republic of Maryland!

It's near the top of mine too!

MattS · Jun 29, 2016

In my opinion this is the wrong approach. Since I imagine that this law applies almost entirely to "places" that one voluntary enters, just don't go in if you don't feel safe. There is no need to pass costs on to business owners (even ones I disagree with) because of the actions of others.

photoracer · Jun 29, 2016

Why not? if someone on their own volition causes you to not be able to defend yourself from criminal activity they should be libel as interfering with your constitutional rights. Its civil rights plain and simple.

Biggfoot44 · Jun 30, 2016

Same way, a business can avoid potential liability by not volentarily placing their business invitees into unnecessary danger.

alucard0822 · Jun 30, 2016

MattS said:
In my opinion this is the wrong approach. Since I imagine that this law applies almost entirely to "places" that one voluntary enters, just don't go in if you don't feel safe. There is no need to pass costs on to business owners (even ones I disagree with) because of the actions of others.

If a business creates an unsafe environment, they are routinely held liable for damage or injuries, slipping on a wet floor they didn't advertise, cut by broken glass they didn't clean, why should a practice shown to invite crime, and endanger citizens be any different. In a perfect world a business would have protected property rights, and citizens would have the right to patronize or protest as they saw fit, government would merely enforce consensual contracts and provide courts to settle disputes. However that hasn't been the case in more than a century, with forced accommodations, far reaching anti-discrimination laws, and insurance companies free to force policies on businesses in order to offer mandated liability protection, this law might help tilt the unconstitutional burocratic infringement on property rights slightly in our favor.

c&rdaze · Jun 30, 2016

While I agree with the action on one level, I'm concerned because this is the flip side of individuals (holding their own beliefs) don't want to bake a cake for gay weddings or provide certain types of pills. Just think about it!

MattS · Jun 30, 2016

alucard0822 said:
If a business creates an unsafe environment, they are routinely held liable for damage or injuries, slipping on a wet floor they didn't advertise....

Because they ARE providing notice that it's a gun free zone. You assume the risk by entering. This is like going to a baseball game and suing the stadium of you get hit by a foul ball.

kohburn · Jun 30, 2016

seems to me that anyone who banned legal carry assumes all responsibility for security. this just legally makes it so.

Brooklyn · Jun 30, 2016

MattS said:
In my opinion this is the wrong approach. Since I imagine that this law applies almost entirely to "places" that one voluntary enters, just don't go in if you don't feel safe. There is no need to pass costs on to business owners (even ones I disagree with) because of the actions of others.

And yet... if its voluntary how can the state enforce it ..

If self defense is a right...then no guns allowed is no difference than no Irish need apply . .or since the left has no issue with hate crimes they approve of...no gays allowed.

If we tolerate this we are complicit in the view that self defense is not a protected right.

Blacksmith101 · Jun 30, 2016

Brooklyn said:
And yet... if its voluntary how can the state enforce it ..

If self defense is a right...then no guns allowed is no difference than no Irish need apply . .or since the left has no issue with hate crimes they approve of...no gays allowed.

If we tolerate this we are complicit in the view that self defense is not a protected right.

Or no blacks or Muslims or any other group allowed. They are all CIVIL RIGHTS!

A similar provision should be included in all anti gun legislation including removing the governments immunity from being sued if they ban legally carried guns.

Rickman · Jun 30, 2016

If you can't beat 'em, out flank 'em.

MattS · Jun 30, 2016

Blacksmith101 said:
Or no blacks or Muslims or any other group allowed. They are all CIVIL RIGHTS!

I think you're conflating rights with motivations for denying them.

It's acceptable for private businesses to prevent someone from making a political speech on their property. What they can't do is deny that privilege based on an immutable characteristic like race, religion, or, in some states, sexual orientation.

Failure to respect private property rights is a tactic that the "other" guys use. And a tactic that I refuse to adopt.

K31 · Jun 30, 2016

Makes perfect sense to anyone except the "common sense" crowd.

kohburn · Jun 30, 2016

MattS said:
Failure to respect private property rights is a tactic that the "other" guys use. And a tactic that I refuse to adopt.

this does not conflict with private property rights. they still have the ability to refuse weapons from the property. but in doing so they are no longer immune from liability for someone being injured as a result.

jc1240 · Jun 30, 2016

kohburn said:
this does not conflict with private property rights. they still have the ability to refuse weapons from the property. but in doing so they are no longer immune from liability for someone being injured as a result.

This. Just like homeowners being sued for pool accidents even when permission was NOT given to use the pool.

Tennessee law combatting "gun free zone" businesses

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

2013'er

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

Where's the beef?

Member

Competition Shooter

Ultimate Member

For great Justice

Active Member

Member

Resident MacGyver

I stand with John Locke.

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Member

"Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"

Resident MacGyver

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics