[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Their Business, Their Rules.... (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 12/5/2016 3:31:46 PM EDT
|
Bill would let disarmed Missourians sue businesses if injured in gun-free zones
The proposal, known as House Bill 96, which would apply when a person who is authorized to carry a firearm, is prohibited from doing so by a business and is then injured by another person or an animal.
If the injured person could otherwise have used a gun for self-defense, they could sue the business, which "assume(s) custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person" on their property who could carry. Discuss |
|
Quoted:
How exactly are individuals being forced to due business with these private entities? Quoted:
Quoted:
Good. Their business, their rules, their liability. How exactly are individuals being forced to due business with these private entities? Nobody is being forced to do anything. But with a bill like this, a business would be forced to accept the potential liability of the decision to require those voluntary customers to disarm. If a store or some other business required customers to remove their shoes, and then a customer stepped on a big shard of broken glass inside.... |
|
Quoted:
Nobody is being forced to do anything. But with a bill like this, a business would be forced to accept the potential liability of the decision to require those voluntary customers to disarm. If a store or some other business required customers to remove their shoes, and then a customer stepped on a big shard of broken glass inside.... Re-read the first two sentences of your post. |
|
what is the difference between this and suing a gun company for their firearm being used in a mass shooting?
Let me make this simple: Private entity or business: do what you want. Public entity or business that receives tax dollars: you have to allow CCW... (When I say public, I mean owned by or in part by the state..not in the stock market) .gov got it wrong about the cake. Two wrongs don't make a right...even though I am pro 2A. |
|
Quoted:
Do you actually have to have a carry permit to sue? Could a person who did not have a permit, and is injured on someone's property that was posted sue also? Missouri will have Constitutional Carry effective 1/1/'17. I'm not 100% on the date, as it may already be in effect. This kind of law illustrates, once again, the difference between the GOP and DemocRATS. Those incessantly harping both parties are "the same" are so full of shit their eyes are brown. Missouri has a Republican super-majority and has strengthened pro-gun laws at roughly the inverse to California gutting them. 
|
|
Quoted:
Re-read the first two sentences of your post. Quoted:
Quoted:
Nobody is being forced to do anything. But with a bill like this, a business would be forced to accept the potential liability of the decision to require those voluntary customers to disarm. If a store or some other business required customers to remove their shoes, and then a customer stepped on a big shard of broken glass inside.... Re-read the first two sentences of your post. You're going to have to explain it. I have no idea what your point is. If the business elects to have you on their property, but demands that you disarm, then they're responsible for your safety per this bill. If they don't want to do business with you, then they don't have to, and no one is forcing them. I have no problem with this. Why do you? |
|
Quoted:
what is the difference between this and suing a gun company for their firearm being used in a mass shooting? Let me make this simple: Private entity or business: do what you want. Public entity or business that receives tax dollars: you have to allow CCW... (When I say public, I mean owned by or in part by the state..not in the stock market) .gov got it wrong about the cake. Two wrongs don't make a right...even though I am pro 2A. and for the vast majority of the country if something is publicly owned its normally a no-go by statute or posted |
|
Quoted:
The problem with that plan is at some point there may not be anyplace left to shop or work. Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a stupid proposal. Don't like that business's rules? Don't patronize them. The problem with that plan is at some point there may not be anyplace left to shop or work. We're entitled to neither of those. |
|
Quoted:
We're entitled to neither of those. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a stupid proposal. Don't like that business's rules? Don't patronize them. The problem with that plan is at some point there may not be anyplace left to shop or work. We're entitled to neither of those. See what happens if you post no minorities allowed at your business, or refuse service, as in the cake statement posted above. |
|
Quoted:
what is the difference between this and suing a gun company for their firearm being used in a mass shooting? Let me make this simple: Private entity or business: do what you want. Public entity or business that receives tax dollars: you have to allow CCW... (When I say public, I mean owned by or in part by the state..not in the stock market) .gov got it wrong about the cake. Two wrongs don't make a right...even though I am pro 2A. I tend to agree. But while we're at it let's get rid of laws that give weight to the "no guns" signs. They have a right to put up the sign. I can choose to ignore it (like "no outside food or drinks"). If they catch me, they can tell me to never come back. Easy cheesy. |
|
Quoted:
Good. Their business, their rules, their liability. I agree, but I somewhere where a lawyer for business said that lawsuit could easily defeated because the person was not forced to use that business. He was basically saying that since the person, knowing the risks, complied of their own free will so they have no basis for a lawsuit. I am not sure if that's how it would actually go in court but it make wonder if such a lawsuit could succeed. |
|
Quoted:
If a bakery can be forced to bake a cake... Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a stupid proposal. Don't like that business's rules? Don't patronize them. If a bakery can be forced to bake a cake... Normally I would agree with MSC182 but when they started forcing people to do that shit its time for us to be proactive like the LGBTMLP. |
|
Quoted:
I tend to agree. But while we're at it let's get rid of laws that give weight to the "no guns" signs. They have a right to put up the sign. I can choose to ignore it (like "no outside food or drinks"). If they catch me, they can tell me to never come back. Easy cheesy. In Missouri, those signs already have no weight (outside of a few exceptions written into law, like gov't buildings). |
|
Quoted:
Bill would let disarmed Missourians sue businesses if injured in gun-free zones The proposal, known as House Bill 96, which would apply when a person who is authorized to carry a firearm, is prohibited from doing so by a business and is then injured by another person or an animal.
If the injured person could otherwise have used a gun for self-defense, they could sue the business, which "assume(s) custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person" on their property who could carry. Discuss I don't like it. I have a choice whether to go into a business or not. If the business has signage and I know that I'm making a choice to disarm to go there, then that's my choice. As long as the thing that injured me wasn't reasonably foreseeable I just don't see how the business owner is responsible. |
|
Quoted:
How exactly are individuals being forced to due business with these private entities? Quoted:
Quoted:
Good. Their business, their rules, their liability. How exactly are individuals being forced to due business with these private entities? If queers can sue for wedding cakes........ |
|
Quoted:
Bill would let disarmed Missourians sue businesses if injured in gun-free zones The proposal, known as House Bill 96, which would apply when a person who is authorized to carry a firearm, is prohibited from doing so by a business and is then injured by another person or an animal.
If the injured person could otherwise have used a gun for self-defense, they could sue the business, which "assume(s) custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person" on their property who could carry. Discuss actions have consequences. If a business removes the capability of an individual to protect themselves effectively, but does not provide the adequate suplimentation of the aforementioned removed capability, they should be responsible for well being of that individual. |
|
Quoted:
But they were and now that's the gold standard. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If a bakery can be forced to bake a cake... Yes, but they shouldn't be forced to do so. But they were and now that's the gold standard. The gold standard for statist fucks that want to use the power of government to force people to think and act as they do. Is that who you are? It's not who I am. |
|
Quoted:
Yes, but they shouldn't be forced to do so. That's the whole point. We can argue the ideology until we are blue in the face. But the fact is that the rabid left has created this dildo of excessive liability to rape any business they see fit. It's time we beat them over the head with it. I guarantee you, that if by some miracle that something like this got passed nationally, places like toys r us, target, movie theatres, etc would pull their signs real fucking quick or run the risk of loosing millions to added overhead, or to victims of the people they neglected. |
|
Quoted:
Missouri will have Constitutional Carry effective 1/1/'17. I'm not 100% on the date, as it may already be in effect. This kind of law illustrates, once again, the difference between the GOP and DemocRATS. Those incessantly harping both parties are "the same" are so full of shit their eyes are brown. Missouri has a Republican super-majority and has strengthened pro-gun laws at roughly the inverse to California gutting them. I live in a Free State! Other people do not. |
|
Quoted:
Missouri will have Constitutional Carry effective 1/1/'17. I'm not 100% on the date, as it may already be in effect. This kind of law illustrates, once again, the difference between the GOP and DemocRATS. Those incessantly harping both parties are "the same" are so full of shit their eyes are brown. Missouri has a Republican super-majority and has strengthened pro-gun laws at roughly the inverse to California gutting them. lol The proposed law is laying an unnecessary burden of liability on businesses in order to affect social change. Is that really the great difference of the GOP? Because it kinda sounds like a liberal strategy... |
|
Quoted:
This. I disagree as well. Government forced gun free zones I despise. Private ones are up to the owner as I believe in freedom for all. Not just freedoms I like. Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a stupid proposal. Don't like that business's rules? Don't patronize them. This. I disagree as well. Government forced gun free zones I despise. Private ones are up to the owner as I believe in freedom for all. Not just freedoms I like. |
|
Quoted:
To me, if a business denies a patron the ability to defend themselves/party, then the business should assume that obligation. No business can deny anyone the ability to defend themselves. That's not how this works. If you don't like it, don't go inside the business. If you do go inside you have made a choice. How about you live with the consequences of your choices and I with mine? How's that for a novel idea. It's maddening and disappointing to see how many people here act just exactly like a bunch of liberal twats when it suits their purposes. You people have no ability to look at the long view and see that doing this kind of shit only empowers government and that government power will eventually be used against you. The only, and I mean ONLY, means to actual freedom is to refuse any more power for the government and strip as much of it from them as possible while maintaining an orderly society. The same people who thought the Patriot Act was a good idea were shitting bricks 7 years later when Obama took office. Do you never learn? Each of these seemingly minor laws is another power for the government. A few years ago we were shocked at the idea that government could reach into a business and tell them what cake they must bake and for whom. Now we're just happy as clams with that idea? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Are you so myopic that you're unable to see that a government which has the power to tell me I must allow customers to do something also has the power to tell me I may not allow customers to do something? Do you not understand the real world? Have you paid no attention to history? Have you learned nothing? If you are so short sighted and ignorant that you think this law is a good idea please remove your genitals with a blow torch so that you can't reproduce. This kind of narrow minded, short sighted, totalitarian bullshit needs to end. Understand this: It's businesses today but tomorrow it's going to be your home and it's not going to be a government run by people who happened to mostly think the way you do. |