User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:29:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.
Seriously, we don't need anymore Yankee snow birds thinking it's ok to need a permit to buy a handgun |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:31:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Moving back to TN in August
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:31:52 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Facebook on Monday: Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. That's the amendment that confused me. Like it contradicts the original wording completely. I don't speak lawyer so I want to be educated. For the record, I don't trust haslam and his groupies AT ALL. He'll run for president soon, I'm guessing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:33:45 PM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:36:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Other than government property, do 'no gun' signs carry any legal weight in TN?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:41:56 PM EDT
[#6]
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. It's not forcing the business owner to do any action. It's holding them responsible if they deny their customers the right to defend themselves and as a result the customer is harmed.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:42:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Other than government property, do 'no gun' signs carry any legal weight in TN? Yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:49:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Other than government property, do 'no gun' signs carry any legal weight in TN? Yes they do if properly posted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:51:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you forced to go to the business that posted the signs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? Since pretty much every insurance outfit demands the signs (which have force of law), your question is pointless. Government forces businesses to carry insurance under threat of prison/ruin. Insurance carriers require the businesses to put up the signs. The government enforces the sign, forcing people not to carry by threat of prison. And then jokers like you scream "No one is forcing you to do anything." Bollocks. Either remove government force from the equation entirely or get out of the way while we play the same game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:54:09 PM EDT
[#10]
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. No one is being forced to give up the enjoyment of their property right. No one is being stripped of their right to self defense. Win/Win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:56:15 PM EDT
[#11]
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 support the rights of people to do what they want with their own property. If they don't want you to carry a gun then it's their prerogative. It's your choice to go or not. Your line of thinking is right out of the liberal play book. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:58:32 PM EDT
[#12]
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. X 1000. It's funny how many people on here beat their chests about personal responsibility and freedom and then switch to democrats when someone doesn't want them to carry a gun on their property |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:59:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I support the rights of people to do what they want with their own property. If they don't want you to carry a gun then it's their prerogative. It's your choice to go or not. Your line of thinking is right out of the liberal play book. 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 support the rights of people to do what they want with their own property. If they don't want you to carry a gun then it's their prerogative. It's your choice to go or not. Your line of thinking is right out of the liberal play book. And under this law it remains their prerogative. The only change is they are liable if doing so results in harm to those they denied the right to ccw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:59:26 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I support the rights of people to do what they want with their own property. If they don't want you to carry a gun then it's their prerogative. It's your choice to go or not. Your line of thinking is right out of the liberal play book. 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 support the rights of people to do what they want with their own property. If they don't want you to carry a gun then it's their prerogative. It's your choice to go or not. Your line of thinking is right out of the liberal play book. This ceased to be a property rights issue when a third party involved itsef through government mandate and then required no-carry signs which are enforced by the government. Remove the insurance-required-government-enforced-signs issue and it would be a property rights issue. As it is, in several States, it is not a property issue. None of us are debating if a peoperty owner has the right to kick people off his property and prevent trespass over a gun. That would be perfectly fine. That isn't what is happening in the relevant States. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:03:50 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. 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. This is the only argument that can be made. I still don't like it. Everything is so fucked, we need a complete reset. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:05:19 AM EDT
[#16]
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. This is absolutely correct... But the insurance company forces the signs because it helps limit their liability in court if things go sideways or an ND/AD. If the insurance companies were protected from liability by law from criminal acts with firearms and ND/AD they would make the businesses remove the signs. It is purely a financial decision to protect their asses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:05:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This ceased to be a property rights issue when a third party involved itsef through government mandate and then required no-carry signs which are enforced by the government. Remove the insurance-required-government-enforced-signs issue and it would be a property rights issue. As it is, in several States, it is not a property issue. None of us are debating if a peoperty owner has the right to kick people off his property and prevent trespass over a gun. That would be perfectly fine. That isn't what is happening in the relevant States. I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying insurance companies force property owners to post their property as a condition to obtain coverage? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:06:06 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then don't come to Tennessee. Last thing we need is another Michigan plate anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.  I came from Michigan in 2013 and I believe in the free market. 
Quoted:
Seriously, we don't need anymore Yankee snow birds thinking it's ok to need a permit to buy a handgun Watch it now, that was number 2 of 4 reasons I left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:06:25 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is absolutely correct... But the insurance company forces the signs because it helps limit their liability in court if things go sideways or an ND/AD. If the insurance companies were protected from liability by law from criminal acts with firearms and ND/AD they would make the businesses remove the signs. It is purely a financial decision to protect their asses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. This is absolutely correct... But the insurance company forces the signs because it helps limit their liability in court if things go sideways or an ND/AD. If the insurance companies were protected from liability by law from criminal acts with firearms and ND/AD they would make the businesses remove the signs. It is purely a financial decision to protect their asses. Where are you getting this information? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:08:29 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since pretty much every insurance outfit demands the signs (which have force of law), your question is pointless. Government forces businesses to carry insurance under threat of prison/ruin. Insurance carriers require the businesses to put up the signs. The government enforces the sign, forcing people not to carry by threat of prison. And then jokers like you scream "No one is forcing you to do anything." Bollocks. Either remove government force from the equation entirely or get out of the way while we play the same game. So, you don't have a choice not to use their business. Got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:08:45 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the only argument that can be made. I still don't like it. Everything is so fucked, we need a complete reset. 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. 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. This is the only argument that can be made. I still don't like it. Everything is so fucked, we need a complete reset. I won't disagree. If this was just about a business owners own sign, and enforcing trespassing laws, it would be a different situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:09:02 AM EDT
[#22]
AR15.com
Where people don't like government telling people how to run their business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:09:38 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
X 1000. It's funny how many people on here beat their chests about personal responsibility and freedom and then switch to democrats when someone doesn't want them to carry a gun on their property Bingo. But mention gays and cakes and they lose their fucking mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:10:33 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is absolutely correct... But the insurance company forces the signs because it helps limit their liability in court if things go sideways or an ND/AD. If the insurance companies were protected from liability by law from criminal acts with firearms and ND/AD they would make the businesses remove the signs. It is purely a financial decision to protect their asses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. This is absolutely correct... But the insurance company forces the signs because it helps limit their liability in court if things go sideways or an ND/AD. If the insurance companies were protected from liability by law from criminal acts with firearms and ND/AD they would make the businesses remove the signs. It is purely a financial decision to protect their asses. So pass a law that the business is not responsible for an ND, just the carrier. Instead of increasing the risk of lawsuits for businesses, let's decrease them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:12:04 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not forcing the business owner to do any action. It's holding them responsible if they deny their customers the right to defend themselves and as a result the customer is harmed.. 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. 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. It's not forcing the business owner to do any action. It's holding them responsible if they deny their customers the right to defend themselves and as a result the customer is harmed.. I really do not understand then, they are and have always been liable. Now they are double liable? What they need to do is let them decide as property owners if they want guns on their property or not and shield them from liability if they choose to allow citizens carry on their property. No one loses rights, and businesses gain civil immunity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:12:20 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying insurance companies force property owners to post their property as a condition to obtain coverage? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This ceased to be a property rights issue when a third party involved itsef through government mandate and then required no-carry signs which are enforced by the government. Remove the insurance-required-government-enforced-signs issue and it would be a property rights issue. As it is, in several States, it is not a property issue. None of us are debating if a peoperty owner has the right to kick people off his property and prevent trespass over a gun. That would be perfectly fine. That isn't what is happening in the relevant States. I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying insurance companies force property owners to post their property as a condition to obtain coverage? Yes, according to several business owners with whom I discussed their decision to put up signage. City requires coverage. Insurance requires the sign. Perhaps insurance providers exist without such requirements. I haven't tracked that down yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:12:51 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So pass a law that the business is not responsible for an ND, just the carrier. Instead of increasing the risk of lawsuits for businesses, let's decrease them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. This is absolutely correct... But the insurance company forces the signs because it helps limit their liability in court if things go sideways or an ND/AD. If the insurance companies were protected from liability by law from criminal acts with firearms and ND/AD they would make the businesses remove the signs. It is purely a financial decision to protect their asses. So pass a law that the business is not responsible for an ND, just the carrier. Instead of increasing the risk of lawsuits for businesses, let's decrease them. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:13:53 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. This is absolutely correct... But the insurance company forces the signs because it helps limit their liability in court if things go sideways or an ND/AD. If the insurance companies were protected from liability by law from criminal acts with firearms and ND/AD they would make the businesses remove the signs. It is purely a financial decision to protect their asses. So pass a law that the business is not responsible for an ND, just the carrier. Instead of increasing the risk of lawsuits for businesses, let's decrease them. Exactly! I would support this too. It would be a softer approach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:16:32 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So pass a law that the business is not responsible for an ND, just the carrier. Instead of increasing the risk of lawsuits for businesses, let's decrease them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. This is absolutely correct... But the insurance company forces the signs because it helps limit their liability in court if things go sideways or an ND/AD. If the insurance companies were protected from liability by law from criminal acts with firearms and ND/AD they would make the businesses remove the signs. It is purely a financial decision to protect their asses. So pass a law that the business is not responsible for an ND, just the carrier. Instead of increasing the risk of lawsuits for businesses, let's decrease them. I still trying to figure out what is meant by this. In my career I've developed, managed or owned over 10m SF of office, retail, and multifamily property across the US. I currently have one in Memphis to boot. Never once have I had an insurance carrier tell me I have to prohibit guns. Never once have I posted a property. If the tenant wants to then it's up to them. I'm not an insurance guru and I don't claim to know everything but this whole idea of insurance companies forcing property owners to prohibit guns is not consistent with my experiences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:17:58 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, according to several business owners with whom I discussed their decision to put up signage. City requires coverage. Insurance requires the sign. Perhaps insurance providers exist without such requirements. I haven't tracked that down yet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This ceased to be a property rights issue when a third party involved itsef through government mandate and then required no-carry signs which are enforced by the government. Remove the insurance-required-government-enforced-signs issue and it would be a property rights issue. As it is, in several States, it is not a property issue. None of us are debating if a peoperty owner has the right to kick people off his property and prevent trespass over a gun. That would be perfectly fine. That isn't what is happening in the relevant States. I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying insurance companies force property owners to post their property as a condition to obtain coverage? Yes, according to several business owners with whom I discussed their decision to put up signage. City requires coverage. Insurance requires the sign. Perhaps insurance providers exist without such requirements. I haven't tracked that down yet. Weird. I've never encountered one with that requirement. If a carrier placed that stipulation on me I'd have my broker go to another carrier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:28:40 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Facebook on Monday: Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. F'ed up law........ First part is great in that it throws duty to protect onto any business owner who posts a stupid red-slashed gun sign. But then they allowed an amendment that is virtually the opposite of the bill and negates all liability unless the business owner is willfully complicit in denying protection of the victim. 
So.....unless a business owner is aiding and abetting someone who is injuring a person on the property, then the law is useless.. I'm calling Ron Ramsey tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:32:23 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the amendment that confused me. Like it contradicts the original wording completely. I don't speak lawyer so I want to be educated. For the record, I don't trust haslam and his groupies AT ALL. He'll run for president soon, I'm guessing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. That's the amendment that confused me. Like it contradicts the original wording completely. I don't speak lawyer so I want to be educated. For the record, I don't trust haslam and his groupies AT ALL. He'll run for president soon, I'm guessing. If you DO choose to prohibit guns on your property you CAN be held liable for whatever happens...but...if you choose NOT TO prohibit guns on your property you CAN NOT be held liable. Or am I way off base here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:33:55 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really do not understand then, they are and have always been liable. Now they are double liable? What they need to do is let them decide as property owners if they want guns on their property or not and shield them from liability if they choose to allow citizens carry on their property. No one loses rights, and businesses gain civil immunity. 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. 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. It's not forcing the business owner to do any action. It's holding them responsible if they deny their customers the right to defend themselves and as a result the customer is harmed.. I really do not understand then, they are and have always been liable. Now they are double liable? What they need to do is let them decide as property owners if they want guns on their property or not and shield them from liability if they choose to allow citizens carry on their property. No one loses rights, and businesses gain civil immunity. I don't think a business is liable if I'm following their no gun posting and a crazy stabs me within an inch of my life. Are they? I could be wrong but I've never seen anyone seek damages because of gun free zones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:42:11 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Better read it again. The phrase "shall not be infringed" does not place any special privileges on parties who may infringe. Now go read the 10th Amendment. The 2nd is a right reserved to the individual, and the 10th makes it very clear that neither the States nor the Federal government many infringe upon the 2nd. Since "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says, I'm going with you can keep and bear arms on any property that is open to the public. That means businesses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:45:28 AM EDT
[#35]
I haven't read this since it was passed but my recollection is that the bill was to provide the ability to hold posted businesses liable for the personal safety of customers if they disallowed carry.
It turned into, if a business owner wants to allow carry on the premises then they will not be held liable for their actions. They knocked the teeth out of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:46:51 AM EDT
[#36]
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. I agree. The property owner isn't being forced to do anything. They are free to choose either option. If they don't like guns, they can choose to prohibit them and assume the responsibility for the safety of their guests. Or, they can choose to allow their guests to arm themselves and assume responsibility for their own protection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:53:53 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, you don't have a choice not to use their business. Got it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since pretty much every insurance outfit demands the signs (which have force of law), your question is pointless. Government forces businesses to carry insurance under threat of prison/ruin. Insurance carriers require the businesses to put up the signs. The government enforces the sign, forcing people not to carry by threat of prison. And then jokers like you scream "No one is forcing you to do anything." Bollocks. Either remove government force from the equation entirely or get out of the way while we play the same game. So, you don't have a choice not to use their business. Got it. So you don't have any reading comprehension. Got it. Now that we're done with the "snark" phase of our exchange, I'll attempt to make it even simpler for you than TexasRifleman did.
Now do you understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:57:13 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not forcing the business owner to do any action. It's holding them responsible if they deny their customers the right to defend themselves and as a result the customer is harmed.. 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. 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. It's not forcing the business owner to do any action. It's holding them responsible if they deny their customers the right to defend themselves and as a result the customer is harmed.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:00:54 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I still trying to figure out what is meant by this. In my career I've developed, managed or owned over 10m SF of office, retail, and multifamily property across the US. I currently have one in Memphis to boot. Never once have I had an insurance carrier tell me I have to prohibit guns. Never once have I posted a property. If the tenant wants to then it's up to them. I'm not an insurance guru and I don't claim to know everything but this whole idea of insurance companies forcing property owners to prohibit guns is not consistent with my experiences. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. This is absolutely correct... But the insurance company forces the signs because it helps limit their liability in court if things go sideways or an ND/AD. If the insurance companies were protected from liability by law from criminal acts with firearms and ND/AD they would make the businesses remove the signs. It is purely a financial decision to protect their asses. So pass a law that the business is not responsible for an ND, just the carrier. Instead of increasing the risk of lawsuits for businesses, let's decrease them. I still trying to figure out what is meant by this. In my career I've developed, managed or owned over 10m SF of office, retail, and multifamily property across the US. I currently have one in Memphis to boot. Never once have I had an insurance carrier tell me I have to prohibit guns. Never once have I posted a property. If the tenant wants to then it's up to them. I'm not an insurance guru and I don't claim to know everything but this whole idea of insurance companies forcing property owners to prohibit guns is not consistent with my experiences. I have no idea myself, we're talking about the situation presented in some states. I don't allow customers on my property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:04:54 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you don't have any reading comprehension. Got it. Now that we're done with the "snark" phase of our exchange, I'll attempt to make it even simpler for you than TexasRifleman did.
Now do you understand? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since pretty much every insurance outfit demands the signs (which have force of law), your question is pointless. Government forces businesses to carry insurance under threat of prison/ruin. Insurance carriers require the businesses to put up the signs. The government enforces the sign, forcing people not to carry by threat of prison. And then jokers like you scream "No one is forcing you to do anything." Bollocks. Either remove government force from the equation entirely or get out of the way while we play the same game. So, you don't have a choice not to use their business. Got it. So you don't have any reading comprehension. Got it. Now that we're done with the "snark" phase of our exchange, I'll attempt to make it even simpler for you than TexasRifleman did.
Now do you understand? So where would they get the liability insurance to cover this mandate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:06:21 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you don't have any reading comprehension. Got it. Now that we're done with the "snark" phase of our exchange, I'll attempt to make it even simpler for you than TexasRifleman did.
Now do you understand? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since pretty much every insurance outfit demands the signs (which have force of law), your question is pointless. Government forces businesses to carry insurance under threat of prison/ruin. Insurance carriers require the businesses to put up the signs. The government enforces the sign, forcing people not to carry by threat of prison. And then jokers like you scream "No one is forcing you to do anything." Bollocks. Either remove government force from the equation entirely or get out of the way while we play the same game. So, you don't have a choice not to use their business. Got it. So you don't have any reading comprehension. Got it. Now that we're done with the "snark" phase of our exchange, I'll attempt to make it even simpler for you than TexasRifleman did.
Now do you understand? Yes, and it's still bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:07:00 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Better read it again. The phrase "shall not be infringed" does not place any special privileges on parties who may infringe. Now go read the 10th Amendment. The 2nd is a right reserved to the individual, and the 10th makes it very clear that neither the States nor the Federal government many infringe upon the 2nd. Since "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says, I'm going with you can keep and bear arms on any property that is open to the public. That means businesses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Better read it again. The phrase "shall not be infringed" does not place any special privileges on parties who may infringe. Now go read the 10th Amendment. The 2nd is a right reserved to the individual, and the 10th makes it very clear that neither the States nor the Federal government many infringe upon the 2nd. Since "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says, I'm going with you can keep and bear arms on any property that is open to the public. That means businesses. You'd make a great Democrat. The bill of rights protects me from private citizens!!!! Private businesses open to the public equals government. In the gun industry, I should have to hire a Hillary lover, because I can't restrict ones right to free speech. And my employees should be able to shit talk me to my customers without repercussions because first amendment. Sounds grand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:07:27 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Other than government property, do 'no gun' signs carry any legal weight in TN? Yes So this is a government solution to a government problem?  ETA: Companies should feel free to post whatever bullshit they want, but it should carry no special legal right. Trespass should be the highest form of redress a business should be able to have in terms of patrons carrying a weapon in their establishment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:08:06 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which plenty of people were against the ruling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. The business creates an unsafe environment, failure of snow removal or allows a spill to sit. They can and should beat the cost of an injury. This is exactly the same. The owner created an unsafe environment and should be sued for failure to correct it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:10:29 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The business creates an unsafe environment, failure of snow removal or allows a spill to sit. They can and should beat the cost of an injury. This is exactly the same. The owner created an unsafe environment and should be sued for failure to correct it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. The business creates an unsafe environment, failure of snow removal or allows a spill to sit. They can and should beat the cost of an injury. This is exactly the same. The owner created an unsafe environment and should be sued for failure to correct it. However, they specifically warn that guns aren't allowed on the premises. Why would you want to take that risk? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:43:21 AM EDT
[#46]
Glad I live in a state where gun-free zones don't legally matter.
Exception is jails, court, bars and schools. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:45:30 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Glad I live in a state where gun-free zones don't legally matter. Exception is jails, court, bars and schools. You can't carry in bars? That sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:46:36 AM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:50:14 AM EDT
[#49]
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. "Bake that cake/cater that wedding, peasant." See how that works? Public accommodation = no infringing on rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 1:53:16 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which plenty of people were against the ruling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. True. But the ruling was made, and it stands as case law. It should therefore, logically, apply equally to all rights, not just the ones invented by the courts. |
|
|
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.
