User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:40:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Needs more like this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:49:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Nice job free state to my south. Well try to keep up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:49:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Needs more like this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:51:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:54:00 PM EDT
[#5]
Weapons - As enacted, provides immunity from civil liability to a person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by positing, with respect to any claim based on the person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt such a policy. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.
This actually limits liability of the business who posts prohibited signs. This is NOT what OP was saying. This is bill in link. Confused..... 
ETA: Ok, there are two different bills on that link. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:54:15 PM EDT
[#6]
Bill seems very broad. What constitutes as "responsible for safety"
We installed a house phone available to guests to dial 911 in case of emergency? We are required to have a 24 hour staff of no less then 5 armed guards per 8 hour shift? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:54:57 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:55:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. But if every grocery store posts a no carry sign................................. 
If you are going to impede my ability to protect myself then you are telling me you got it covered. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:55:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Are people forced on the property? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:55:50 PM EDT
[#10]
So you can sue the property owner after you and your family get shot? Uhhhh.....
Nullifying the "force of law" that the NO GUNS signs have would be far preferable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:56:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weapons - As enacted, provides immunity from civil liability to a person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by positing, with respect to any claim based on the person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt such a policy. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13. This actually limits liability of the business who posts prohibited signs. This is NOT what OP was saying. This is bill in link. Confused.....
ETA: Ok, there are two different bills on that link. If you read the bottom of my OP, you'll see that it confused me too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:56:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But if every grocery store posts a no carry sign.................................
If you are going to impede my ability to protect myself then you are telling me you got it covered. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. But if every grocery store posts a no carry sign.................................
If you are going to impede my ability to protect myself then you are telling me you got it covered. Where are you forced to go to that grocery store? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:57:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Would rather see permit holders vote with their wallets, boycott the business, and allow the free market decide. I'm not a fan of using the courts to do your dirty work, like the gays with the cakes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:57:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are people forced on the property? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Are people forced on the property? Are people forced to ban guns on the property? Do you, or do you not, support the right to bear arms? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:57:51 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. Free market wasn't getting the right answer fast enough so government had to step in. Yes, that's a thing that liberals usually do. It works really well for them, and saying "we're better than that" works really not well for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:58:26 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are people forced to ban guns on the property? Do you, or do you not, support the right to bear arms? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Are people forced on the property? Are people forced to ban guns on the property? Do you, or do you not, support the right to bear arms? I am of the opinion my property trumps everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:58:38 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But if every grocery store posts a no carry sign.................................
If you are going to impede my ability to protect myself then you are telling me you got it covered. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. But if every grocery store posts a no carry sign.................................
If you are going to impede my ability to protect myself then you are telling me you got it covered. Free market, go open a grocery store that allows carry. Like the gays with the cakes, they should go open a gay bakery, not sue another out of business. Frankly, I'm disappointed in your business, I thought it was a one stop shop where I could buy A1 receivers and potatoes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:59:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you read the bottom of my OP, you'll see that it confused me too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Weapons - As enacted, provides immunity from civil liability to a person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by positing, with respect to any claim based on the person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt such a policy. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13. This actually limits liability of the business who posts prohibited signs. This is NOT what OP was saying. This is bill in link. Confused.....
ETA: Ok, there are two different bills on that link. If you read the bottom of my OP, you'll see that it confused me too. Ok, I got it now. It protects someone who CAN post prohibited signs, but DOES NOT, from being sued. I hate fucking lawyers and their legal mumbo jumbo.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:59:39 PM EDT
[#19]
I love the smell of Tennessee freedom.
Maybe we can can take this law to Texas and they can have freedom too just like the last time we gave them freedom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:00:36 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are people forced to ban guns on the property? Do you, or do you not, support the right to bear arms? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Are people forced on the property? Are people forced to ban guns on the property? Do you, or do you not, support the right to bear arms? The second protect you from government, not from other private individuals. I'm sick of the left twisting rights, so I'll call my own out on it when I see it. Private citizens can ban guns on their property, and you can and should choose to stay off their property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:01:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am of the opinion my property trumps everything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Are people forced on the property? Are people forced to ban guns on the property? Do you, or do you not, support the right to bear arms? I am of the opinion my property trumps everything. They have the right to deny me carrying or the responsibility to protect my family. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:01:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would rather see permit holders vote with their wallets, boycott the business, and allow the free market decide. I'm not a fan of using the courts to do your dirty work, like the gays with the cakes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Would rather see permit holders vote with their wallets, boycott the business, and allow the free market decide. I'm not a fan of using the courts to do your dirty work, like the gays with the cakes. To a point I agree completely. I don't know of any successful boycotts of businesses by gun owners. *shrugs* If a person gets sick on tainted meat from a grocery store due to negligence and improper labeling, they can be sued. The gov doesn't do anything. It's between the sick person and the store. I don't see much of a difference, but am willing to listen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:02:57 PM EDT
[#23]
I'm all about voting with my wallet.
But if pro gun people don't start using the system to further our agenda we will lose our rights. You can be as libertarian as you want to be, but please understand the other side will use big gov against you in a heartbeat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:03:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love the smell of Tennessee freedom. Maybe we can can take this law to Texas and they can have freedom too just like the last time we gave them freedom. Do they deserve it, though? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:03:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would rather see permit holders vote with their wallets, boycott the business, and allow the free market decide. I'm not a fan of using the courts to do your dirty work, like the gays with the cakes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Would rather see permit holders vote with their wallets, boycott the business, and allow the free market decide. I'm not a fan of using the courts to do your dirty work, like the gays with the cakes. HAHAHA! Have you seen all the costco-deniers and "concealed means concealed" morons on this place alone? Good luck with thar. Having said that, I totally agree, let the market decide, it usually works pretty good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:03:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They have the right to deny me carrying or the responsibility to protect my family. Once again, who is forcing you on the property? To do business with that company? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:03:24 PM EDT
[#27]
Awesome! I had not heard anything about this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:05:22 PM EDT
[#28]
Interesting .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:05:48 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. When four insurance companies in bed with the government set anti-gun policies for 95% of businesses, it's time to address the issue. We could deregulate insurance and insurance requirements... But that isn't happening. This all comes down to insurance companies and their political bias. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:06:09 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once again, who is forcing you on the property? To do business with that company? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They have the right to deny me carrying or the responsibility to protect my family. Once again, who is forcing you on the property? To do business with that company? This is the gay wedding cake argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:06:34 PM EDT
[#31]
I got my eye on TN...I hope their political climate persists into my retirement! Lots to like about this attitude re: those that carry.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:07:11 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do they deserve it, though? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I love the smell of Tennessee freedom. Maybe we can can take this law to Texas and they can have freedom too just like the last time we gave them freedom. Do they deserve it, though? Well they have sucked at out so far.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:08:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once again, who is forcing you on the property? To do business with that company? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They have the right to deny me carrying or the responsibility to protect my family. Once again, who is forcing you on the property? To do business with that company? In some States, almost all retail businesses are required to carry insurance by law. So, there's where people are being forced. You have to buy insurance, and the insurance company gets to dictate you put up a sign. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:08:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Good. I am happy WI has a similar one
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:11:16 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am of the opinion my property trumps everything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Are people forced on the property? Are people forced to ban guns on the property? Do you, or do you not, support the right to bear arms? I am of the opinion my property trumps everything. When you allow the public on your property...those rights are curtailed....no right is absolute silly. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:13:58 PM EDT
[#36]
I've always felt that if you deny somebody the right of defense on your property (ie, "Gun Free Zone") then you as the property owner take FULL responsibility for their safety and well-being
in case of some event that could cause death or serious bodily injury. Don't hire enough cops/off-duty cops to protect your patrons? Your ass should be pay. Hell, it should almost be criminal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:14:25 PM EDT
[#37]
Win.
Balances property rights with 2A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:16:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am of the opinion my property trumps everything. As it should. If this is what it seems to be, it's a poor idea. IMO, if you do not want to disarm, do not patronize the business, etc. Vote with your feet and dollars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:16:11 PM EDT
[#39]
W should be using the courts to our advantage more often
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:16:36 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the gay wedding cake argument. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They have the right to deny me carrying or the responsibility to protect my family. Once again, who is forcing you on the property? To do business with that company? This is the gay wedding cake argument. Which plenty of people were against the ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:17:18 PM EDT
[#41]
They gutted a good bill.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:18:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Not gun related but Michigan defines the difference between private property, public property and property that serves the public. For example you home is private. There is generally no one allowed. Public is government owned. Serving the public is a store/business that allows public the come and go. You are already bound by safety rules and such.
So even though you own the property, if you serve the public it's no longer private. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:19:42 PM EDT
[#43]
Concealed is concealed. I do not want to have my estate sue a property owner.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:19:54 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As it should. If this is what it seems to be, it's a poor idea. IMO, if you do not want to disarm, do not patronize the business, etc. Vote with your feet and dollars. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am of the opinion my property trumps everything. As it should. If this is what it seems to be, it's a poor idea. IMO, if you do not want to disarm, do not patronize the business, etc. Vote with your feet and dollars. Then don't come to Tennessee. Last thing we need is another Michigan plate anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:20:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not real fond of giving up property rights. I'd rather let the market decide how we treat people that ban carry than making the government do it for us. The property has every right to tell people they don't want guns on their property. But now they are also allowed to be sued into oblivion when/if somebody decides to shoot up the place and hits a permit holder. It's perfectly free market. Actions and consequences allowed by government, brought forth by individuals. You see the sign turn around. I say you're kinda entering at your own risk |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:20:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In some States, almost all retail businesses are required to carry insurance by law. So, there's where people are being forced. You have to buy insurance, and the insurance company gets to dictate you put up a sign. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They have the right to deny me carrying or the responsibility to protect my family. Once again, who is forcing you on the property? To do business with that company? In some States, almost all retail businesses are required to carry insurance by law. So, there's where people are being forced. You have to buy insurance, and the insurance company gets to dictate you put up a sign. Are you forced to go to the business that posted the signs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:21:26 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then don't come to Tennessee. Last thing we need is another Michigan plate anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am of the opinion my property trumps everything. As it should. If this is what it seems to be, it's a poor idea. IMO, if you do not want to disarm, do not patronize the business, etc. Vote with your feet and dollars. Then don't come to Tennessee. Last thing we need is another Michigan plate anyway. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:23:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When you allow the public on your property...those rights are curtailed....no right is absolute silly.
And I can order the public off as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:23:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Does this apply to the government as well?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:25:24 PM EDT
[#50]
From the Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Facebook on Monday:
WARNING!!!!
There are posts all over FB tonight about SB1736 going into effect this week. That bill, as introduced, would have made a business owner liable if they banned permit holders from carrying on their property. That bill was gutted and rewritten to remove the provisions making the property owners liable for disarming lawful gun owners. The "crap" that was substituted (with Sen. Brian Kelsey's name on it) is in the following language that did pass: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by adding the following as a new section: (a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to§ 39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to§ 39-17-1359. (b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. http://share.tn.gov/sos/acts/109/pub/pc0947.pdf Once again, Tennesseans have been deceived and cheated by Establishment Republicans in public office... starting with Brian Kelsey and aided by Sen. Dolores Gresham who apparently accepted the amendment and let it be carried in her name. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
