Tennessee to hold Voluntary Gun Free Zones Responsible for Harm

[KLB]

I'm surprised this wasn't posted already. I know many here are fans of this.

As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.

Want a Gun-Free Zone? Tennessee Says That?s on You: LITERALLY ? Bearing Arms
Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents

 

[steve0322]

Nice. I always liked Tennessee.

 

[halfmileharry]

I'm surprised this wasn't posted already. I know many here are fans of this.

Want a Gun-Free Zone? Tennessee Says That?s on You: LITERALLY ? Bearing Arms
Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents

Tagged for interest. We have a family farm in TN still and this looks promising. I haven't seen an issue in the small towns I usually frequent but I've stayed out of some of the larger cities because of the conflicting laws.

 

[printcraft]

On the surface I say great.... but the kid in me says..... If they willingly go to a place that demands they disarm they VOID the ability to sue.
I prefer, no weight of law, see Indiana, in regard to carry. You can carry, if they don't like it you can be told to leave.

 

[T.Lex]

Shouldn't need a law for premises liability, but probably a good thing overall.

 

[BogWalker]

I like printcraft's take. Make the signs hold no weight of law. Businesses generally hold the right to refuse service, and if they want to tell you to leave for carrying I think that's fine. First Amendment protects your right to complain about a restaurant, but if you're standing there in the establishment yelling about how bad it is they certainly can ask you to leave.

They cant, however, make it illegal for you to say those things. Just as they shouldn't be able to make it illegal for you to carry a gun.

 

[KittySlayer]

On the surface I say great.... [STRIKE]but the kid in me says..... If they willingly go to a place that demands they disarm they VOID the ability to sue.[/STRIKE]
I prefer, no weight of law, see Indiana, in regard to carry. You can carry, if they don't like it you can be told to leave.

Yes, initial joy is replaced by reality and maybe Indiana really does have it right. Not sure though that going so far as voiding the ability to sue is the solution, next thing you know I wont be able to buy a wedding cake while wearing my NRA hat.

I do like putting some burden on those choosing to be a GFZ. The responsibility to keep those you unarm safe is a good start and putting some financial teeth in it makes sense. Certainly trumps the GFZ because the insurance company demanded excuse.

How about requiring those with a GFZ to provide secure firearm lockers at their entrance so guns are not left unattended in the parking lot for criminals and those on the No Fly List to steal in a smash and grab. That ought to be expensive enough to make them think twice.

 

[lonehoosier]

That does not apply to the state GFZ like office buildings.

 

[KLB]

On the surface I say great.... but the kid in me says..... If they willingly go to a place that demands they disarm they VOID the ability to sue.
I prefer, no weight of law, see Indiana, in regard to carry. You can carry, if they don't like it you can be told to leave.

This is my thought as well. You have to CHOOSE to enter a place that has a no gun sign. It was your choice that put you in place to be harmed, so I don't think that there should be any liability on the part of the property for your choice.

 

[ATM]

Not a fan.

 

[Que]

I don't like this, because it only gives people the opportunity to sue the places without the "No Guns" signs, if something happens.

 

[KG1]

This is my thought as well. You have to CHOOSE to enter a place that has a no gun sign. It was your choice that put you in place to be harmed, so I don't think that there should be any liability on the part of the property for your choice.

They can always put up a sign that says "GFZ. No firearms allowed. Enter at you own risk"

 

[actaeon277]

If it applies to business, then why wouldn't it apply to government?

 

[Leo]

If it applies to business, then why wouldn't it apply to government?

Seems like a double standard to me, also.

 

[Drail]

I am all for it but I do not believe it will stand up in court.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I can't believe Tennessee would pass a law like this but not pass constitutional carry

 

[KLB]

If it applies to business, then why wouldn't it apply to government?

Not sure if Tenn has any, but they would have a hard time making it apply to places the feds say are off limits.

 

[Libertarian01]

I generally support the idea of this law.

First, while I know I am going against set legal practice, I do not see businesses as persons having "rights," ergo there are no rights to trample on. Unless a business is a person DBAing, I don't have much of a problem with rules for businesses, especially a rule such as this that doesn't impact the actual business function in any way.

After this thought, the current default setting, if you will, is that by posting "Gun Free Zone" signs is doing something to cover the business from litigation, or at least to mitigate potential future litigation. This is the DEFAULT.

However, this law will be forcing both businesses and insurance companies to actually THINK about risk management, along with potential devastating financial harm should they just put up a "Gun Free Zone / No Guns Allowed" policy. This will incentivize the use of logic and critical thinking to come into play beyond the nonsensical default that is currently in place.

Gun Free Zones / No Guns Allowed areas do not work! We have seen this time and again in Aurora Colorado, in Sandy Hook and many, many other locations. Yet the mindless masses continue to think that putting up silly signs does something productive. It does not.

Now they will be forced to think about how to keep their employees, customers and others safe - for real. Their insurance companies will be forced to think about policies they may have pushed in the past, to assess just how useful urging their clients to put up silly signs has been effective.

I wish this would come to Indiana!!!

Regards and Happy 4th,

Doug

 

[edsinger]

Indiana Next!

I like it, why should one be able to decide my constitutional right to self protection...... I say +1 for Tennessee.

I want it for Indiana also.....heck with ALL 50 States...

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06...wn-medicine-passes-awesome-pro-gun-law-359076

 

[Lex Concord]

Seems like a double standard to me, also.

Some animals are more equal than others. That is all.