• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

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

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
2,966
Likes
9,696
Location
third cove on the right
#1
'Gun Free' Zone Tennessee Business Liable for Disarming Concealed Carry Holders






Fox News Nation 'Gun Free' Zone Tennessee Business Liable For Disarming Concealed Carry Holders refers you to the story below.

  • Tennessee law now dictates that businesses wishing to create a "gun-free zone" will be held liable for the safety of concealed carry permit holders.
    The new law, SB 1736, dictates that should any concealed carry permit holder's safety be threatened after disarming themselves to enter their place of business, then the business will be held liable.
    The business will also be held liable if the permit holder incurs injury while "retreating from the business to a vehicle–during an emergency–to retrieve the gun the business owner barred," according to Breitbart.

    Below is a a summary of SB 1736:

    • Present law authorizes persons in control of property to post a notice that prohibits firearms on the premises.
      This bill imposes a duty of care on any person who posts their property to prohibit firearms
      whereby such person will be responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises
      and traversing any area to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder’s firearm is stored.
      The duty of care created by this bill will extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.


    The bill passed the state Senate 26 to 4 earlier in March and passed the House by a vote of 77 to 13 in April. The law went into effect on July 1.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/gun...ness-liable-disarming-concealed-carry-holders
 

Professur

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,396
Likes
5,711
#4
I wonder if this applies equally to gov't offices.
 

the_shootist

Targeted!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,963
Likes
22,710
#5
If one believes that a business person has the right to run his business how he chooses, then this is a shot at that.

The business would get his just dues by the customers he is turning away.
All this says is if you mandate your business as a gun free zone you are NOT immune to any consequences that requirement may cause. You're responsible for the safety of your customers while they are on your premises. I don't see this as an assault on how people run their business at all.
 

the_shootist

Targeted!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,963
Likes
22,710
#7
I do because it is assessing liability on to the business owner and not the perpetrator
Unless a number of patrons are coming in with open sidearms or an AR15 hanging from their shoulder and are scaring away other customers why is this even necessary? Most people carry concealed as they are smart enough to not advertise themselves as a target in a potential violent situation. More often than not these issues are over dramatized for political purposes.
 

Aurumag

Dimly lit. Highly reflective
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,663
Likes
8,035
Location
State of Jefferson
#8
If one believes that a business person has the right to run his business how he chooses, then this is a shot at that.

The business would get his just dues by the customers he is turning away.
Agreed! No law is necessary, because I would simply take my money elsewhere.
 

Aurumag

Dimly lit. Highly reflective
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,663
Likes
8,035
Location
State of Jefferson
#9
I wonder if this applies equally to gov't offices.
Like the time I approached the local IRS office and the armed, private security guard would not let me in until he had checked me for weapons?

He only looked in my bag, but waved the others by without even pretending to look through their stuff.

And for every subsequent person entering, I yelled over to him, "Aren't you going to check for weapons?"
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,279
Likes
20,014
Location
ORYGUN
#10
It is quite simple, if you disagree with a business that prohibits or provides something that you disagree with,
Then DO NOT PATRONIZE THAT BUSINESS !!
We do not need government micro managing our lives !
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
24,888
Likes
28,160
#11
Auru and Taezz spell it out for everyone,

Then too, if a person truly believes in freedom, then we must stand for it. Even when on the surface something appears aok, as I did at first glance, my right to keep and bear arms, yet in full context, then I am infringing on that business owner.

As stated by others, vote with your feet and the business has to accept the consequences accordingly.

This is no different than .gov telling a bakery they have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, etc.

These are decisions the market is very capable of making without .gov intervention, and no ones feelings getting hurt.
 

Usury

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,146
Likes
3,313
#12
Problem Scorp is lawyers and insurers telling businesses "Hey you better adopt a gun-free policy or we won't insure you/or you might get sued for "promoting" a dangerous environment as that's how some would view "allowing" firearms. This gives the business owners a way to fight back. Hey it's state law...I pretty much have to allow it. No more insurance/lawyer problems. This is a good thing. To compare it to the gay wedding cake is ludicrous in my opinion. If a business owner truly is anti-gun and somehow thinks he'll be safer with that policy, then have at it---but he'd better be willing to ensure his customers safety.
 

Alton

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,105
Likes
5,282
Location
Michiana
#14
It is quite simple, if you disagree with a business that prohibits or provides something that you disagree with,
Then DO NOT PATRONIZE THAT BUSINESS !!
We do not need government micro managing our lives !
Exactly! Freedom IS for EVERYBODY!!! If a business owner wants to fearful, stupid or whatever, that IS the business owner's choice. If I want to withhold my dollars from that shopping with that business man, that is MY choice. No harm. No foul. That business man may eventually go out of business. Then again, he may prosper wildly. Don't know. Can't know. Don't really care. I will shop where I am accepted and comfortable. In total, all these actions are choices made by FREE people. No government needed or required.

People will, given enough time, will generally figure out what works well and what doesn't. Government merely screws up this process.
 

Usury

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,146
Likes
3,313
#15
True in many cases, but what about monopolies like Walmart?
Good example of the reality of lawyers and insurance setting policy.
 

Aurumag

Dimly lit. Highly reflective
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,663
Likes
8,035
Location
State of Jefferson
#17
True in many cases, but what about monopolies like Walmart?
The only thing I ever bought at Walmart were crates of ammo between 2008 and 2014.
 

Aurumag

Dimly lit. Highly reflective
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,663
Likes
8,035
Location
State of Jefferson
#18
Unless a number of patrons are coming in with open sidearms or an AR15 hanging from their shoulder...
I have been to such a place, and it was truly wonderful.

It was called The BIG Reno Gun Show.

An armed society is a polite society.

Which reminds me:

This morning after driving my wife to work, some dipshit on the same roadway attempted to threaten me with a baseball bat because I was apparently driving too cautiously.

I just smiled at him, because be had no clue...
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
24,888
Likes
28,160
#19
GUN FREE ZONES ARE END RUN FOR MOREGUN CONTROL
To compare it to the gay wedding cake is ludicrous in my opinion.
I see, so as long as people accept your versions of freedom, then all is aok,

but you are perfectly willing to infringe on another and then come back and claim that is liberty?

as Founding Fathers said one time back in the day,

Freedom can be real ugly at times
 

Aurumag

Dimly lit. Highly reflective
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,663
Likes
8,035
Location
State of Jefferson
#20

the_shootist

Targeted!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,963
Likes
22,710
#21
I see, so as long as people accept your versions of freedom, then all is aok,

but you are perfectly willing to infringe on another and then come back and claim that is liberty?

as Founding Fathers said one time back in the day,

Freedom can be real ugly at times
You sold me Scorp, I simply won't patronize places that won't allow me to defend myself on their property. After reading through this thread that makes the most sense.
 

southfork

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,717
Likes
13,059
#22
I see, so as long as people accept your versions of freedom, then all is aok,

but you are perfectly willing to infringe on another and then come back and claim that is liberty?

as Founding Fathers said one time back in the day,

Freedom can be real ugly at times
Gun free zones are a violation of the Constitution end of story, whats to stop cities from making your home a gun free zone, where does it end? To see otherwise is to deny the 2nd amendment
 

Howdy

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
1,005
Likes
1,152
#23
The only thing I ever bought at Walmart were crates of ammo between 2008 and 2014.
Good for you. Remember that Walmart has created a monopoly in many small towns that formerly had several small independent stores that were put out of business by Chinese goods that were brought in by globalists after being financed by bankers. They should not be "free" to disarm the populace without taking responsibility for their safety. JMO.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,753
Likes
7,037
#24
I do because it is assessing liability on to the business owner and not the perpetrator
As I would challenge the business owner incited and enabled the perpetrator by promoting a Gun Free Zone. As a promoter he must protect those that abided by HIS rule for HIS Establishment. He also needs to take into account the possibility a bad guy / outlaw may decide to prey on HIS establishment and HIS customers HE required to disarm.

........as Founding Fathers said one time back in the day, Freedom can be real ugly at times
EXACTLY - LIBERTY and FREEDOM is NOT FREE. As you can see in this day and time one has to fight to keep what little of both we still have.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,753
Likes
7,037
#26
let's try not to assign more to it than it is, the proposed law is a transference of liability to a business owner of something that is totally out of his control ...
And that my friend is why any business worth its salt carries Liability Insurance and MORE than the minimum required by state laws.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,753
Likes
7,037
#31
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are a Lucky Man sir.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
3,913
Likes
7,470
Location
USA
#33
let's try not to assign more to it than it is,

the proposed law is a transference of liability to a business owner of something that is totally out of his control

the rest is just emotional strawman arguments
It's within the business owner's control to allow or not allow people the means to defend themselves on their property. Should it be within the business owner's control to deny or not deny a Constitutional right on their property?
 

latemetal

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,939
Likes
2,736
#34
It is quite simple, if you disagree with a business that prohibits or provides something that you disagree with,
Then DO NOT PATRONIZE THAT BUSINESS !!
We do not need government micro managing our lives !
I wish I had that choice with government buildings....
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,040
Likes
4,504
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#35
If I tell you not to bring in your weapon if you want to trade fine.

NOW if the gumbyment tells me if'n you get shot because you wanted to trade but din't have your weapon that I cannot mitigate it out then I now ponder why oh why did the non colored drinking fountains go away?

NOW, before you all flame me...just reason out the above sentence, the ponderment does have validity.
 

ttazzman

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,883
Likes
4,382
Location
mid-usa
#36
our state Missouri has this sort of law in consideration also right now....and i havent decided where i stand on it yet...

like Scorpio said i believe in business owners free choice....be it guns...be it smoking etc..

but what is happening is the insurers are in most cases driving the gun ban not the business owners.......

this is a law with many tenticles and un-intended consequences be intresting to see how it plays out
 

Someone_else

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,091
Likes
2,494
#37
Hey, Michael! I understood your post! You are comparing the ability of self-defense (discrimination by possession of certain bits of metal) with "civil rights" (discrimination by possession of colored skin). No flames, good point. A business that puts itself as a "public acomodation" should be more tolerant of its guests than a private home, which should have complete and absolute discretion of its guests.
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
24,888
Likes
28,160
#38
can a person not see that each and every time a opinion is forced upon another, only tightens the noose around your own neck?

that in reality, it is begging for servitude, begging for slavery

one may state, 'that is not what I meant'...........but the reality is, that is exactly it

when you infringe on anothers freedom, you are only indirectly restricting your own rights in time as others do the same with their opinions
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
3,913
Likes
7,470
Location
USA
#39
can a person not see that each and every time a opinion is forced upon another, only tightens the noose around your own neck?

that in reality, it is begging for servitude, begging for slavery

one may state, 'that is not what I meant'...........but the reality is, that is exactly it

when you infringe on anothers freedom, you are only indirectly restricting your own rights in time as others do the same with their opinions
Exactly. When a business owner imposes his/her opinion on another person's Constitutional rights they are diminishing their own rights and everyone elses.
This is difficult. Can you deny free speech also in your business establishment? Maybe so. You don't want some dude preaching in your grocery store. Maybe you don't want your customers defending themselves there, either. Maybe you don't want opinionated customers or living customers. Shop here quietly and put your life on the line.
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
24,888
Likes
28,160
#40
Exactly. When a business owner imposes his/her opinion on another person's Constitutional rights they are diminishing their own rights and everyone elses.
nice move, totally cool,

disagree with how you twisted it, but it was still a good play nonetheless.

with the comment, the choice has still been to infringe on the business owners rights, while claiming you have seniority on his property

if I am wrong, so be it, but at least persons have had the opportunity to review some key points,

-what is freedom
-where does your freedom end, and it becomes infringing on another
-what is the .gov role
-what does the 2nd really mean