Tennessee to hold Voluntary Gun Free Zones Responsible for Harm

[ATM]

I like it, why should one be able to decide my constitutional right to self protection......

Property owners can't decide or in any way impact your right to self protection (such infringement and enforcement is reserved exclusively to our governing rulers). If you choose to abide by their terms and use their property, you have decided, not them, to waive certain rights normally enjoyed in a public space or on your own property.

Property owners should have the right to dictate the terms of using their property, but that right is being further eroded with this new law.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Property owners can't decide or in any way impact your right to self protection (such infringement and enforcement is reserved exclusively to our governing rulers). If you choose to abide by their terms and use their property, you have decided, not them, to waive certain rights normally enjoyed in a public space or on your own property.

Property owners should have the right to dictate the terms of using their property, but that right is being further eroded with this new law.

Though businesses are not humans, they are owned by humans (their property), they are operated by humans, and they employ humans. Without humans, businesses would not exist. But for some reason, many people seem to believe they can apply laws to businesses they wouldn't want applied to humans...or themselves even.

 

[Spear Dane]

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.

So you're saying buy your groceries from Amazon and never leave the house? Your thinking is...well just sit down and come up with a list of places YOU are now telling people they can't go. It shouldnt be hard.

 

[edsinger]

Property owners can't decide or in any way impact your right to self protection (such infringement and enforcement is reserved exclusively to our governing rulers). If you choose to abide by their terms and use their property, you have decided, not them, to waive certain rights normally enjoyed in a public space or on your own property.

Property owners should have the right to dictate the terms of using their property, but that right is being further eroded with this new law.

Well once they are selling then I consider it a public place of business, sure I understand your point, maybe I do not like guns so I should be able to not have them on my property right? Well, if a free country, I don't like purple people, french, credit cards, or $10 bills that are legal tender, or one eyed folks and since it is my property, then I should ban them from my public business right?

See how that works.....you can not discriminate unless it is against what 'left' people do not like...your right to self protection is give to you via the constitution as is their right to pursue happiness. Yet what we have is not working now is it?

I like the law, I am sure that it was passed to make a point and hitting this political correctness crowd with legal bills is karma.

 

[ATM]

Well once they are selling then I consider it a public place of business,

No, the public doesn't own it, they are merely invited to use the property which does not belong to them according to the terms of the actual property owner.

..sure I understand your point, maybe I do not like guns so I should be able to not have them on my property right? Well, if a free country, I don't like purple people, french, credit cards, or $10 bills that are legal tender, or one eyed folks and since it is my property, then I should ban them from my public business right?

If you want to, yes. Your business would suffer, but that would be the natural consequence of your choice regarding the use of your property.

See how that works.....

That's how it should work.

you can not discriminate unless it is against what 'left' people do not like

Yes, the government arbitrarily infringes upon the right to discriminate all the time.

...your right to self protection is give to you via the constitution as is their right to pursue happiness.

No, the constitution gave nothing to the people but a federal government. Surely you realize that our rights existed before the constitution.

Yet what we have is not working now is it?

No, the government we have now intrudes in matters well beyond its scope of delegated powers.

I like the law, I am sure that it was passed to make a point and hitting this political correctness crowd with legal bills is karma.

Sure, I'd like it for those reasons as well

...if Liberty was a lower order principle to me than karma.

 

[oldpink]

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.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to printcraft again.

Not only that, but believers in limited government would agree for obvious reasons.

 

[KLB]

So you're saying buy your groceries from Amazon and never leave the house? Your thinking is...well just sit down and come up with a list of places YOU are now telling people they can't go. It shouldnt be hard.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

ATM put it better than I did. Read his posts and see if you understand.

 

[Libertarian01]

Though businesses are not humans, they are owned by humans (their property), they are operated by humans, and they employ humans. Without humans, businesses would not exist. But for some reason, many people seem to believe they can apply laws to businesses they wouldn't want applied to humans...or themselves even.

I hear what you are saying and understand your point, but I would ask you to consider the following thought.

MOST of these businesses are corporations. They are artificial persons. Why do the humans that own these businesses create artificial persons? Answer: to get special treatment and special protections under the law granted by the state/government. In other words, they have asked for "special protection" such as they can't be personally sued if they hurt or kill someone. "Oops, so sorry, you can take my business but I can shield much of my assets personally so the person I hurt can't get it."

As such, when people ask for special treatment of their business (ie. incorporation) I have NO PROBLEM with the government attaching strings to the operation of said business. You want special treatment, fine, here is what you have to do.

At the point the business is created the humans have a choice that they consciously make, incorporate and accept the strings, OR put their skin in the game and operate as a DBA. This is where I philosophically hold my thinking. What has happened behind the scenes when the business was first created is often overlooked as a choice made by the business owner! He/she chose to ask for special treatment and as such I have no problem forcing them to do or not do certain things.

All of this is philosophical thought. It is just my thinking on whether or not to be upset at a certain condition. When rules are placed on corporations, which almost all of the businesses affected in this case are, then I am not very upset by the rule.

Regards and Happy 4th,

Doug

 

[edsinger]

Well ATM, I can see your point however I am still in favor of the law, if not only to counter the constant assault on our constitutional rights and that not being limited to the 2nd amendment only. Sure, you can boycott the business's but when only 5-10% carry, then it is a moot point. I do not think it will cause frivolous lawsuits at all. The point being, if a venue says that guns on good people are bad and being a no gun zone, and of course we know that criminals always follow the law, but just in case one breaks the law and commits a crime because no one had the ability to defend themselves, then they should get sued. It will change the thinking of the anti's. I am glad we are fighting back and looking like we are actually winning as the laws are more pro gun than 40 years ago. Of course this can all change with an executive order.......If that happens our founders gave us a way to take our nation back.....its called a vote...

 

[Doug]

Uh, guys, if you read the first link in the post, it says the law was changed at the last minute to say that a business cannot be sued if they fail to adopt a no firearms policy and are not grossly negligent. It says nothing about being able to sue a business that adopts a no firearms policy.

 

[edsinger]

Uh, guys, if you read the first link in the post, it says the law was changed at the last minute to say that a business cannot be sued if they fail to adopt a no firearms policy and are not grossly negligent. It says nothing about being able to sue a business that adopts a no firearms policy.

Well that could be but it is the discussion of the proposed law and it supposed passing that was the jist. However if they changed it at the last minute, then of course political correctness won again.....


The article I found did not say that..

Tennessee gives liberals a dose of their own medicine, passes AWESOME pro-gun law | BizPac Review

 

[Doug]

Well that could be but it is the discussion of the proposed law and it supposed passing that was the jist. However if they changed it at the last minute, then of course political correctness won again.....


The article I found did not say that..

Tennessee gives liberals a dose of their own medicine, passes AWESOME pro-gun law | BizPac Review

If you go to that link and click on the highlighted link to the bill, and then on the link to amendments to the bill, and open the amendment to read it, you will find that the final bill relates only to businesses which do not adopt a no firearms policy and that it protects them from being sued.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I hear what you are saying and understand your point, but I would ask you to consider the following thought.

MOST of these businesses are corporations. They are artificial persons. Why do the humans that own these businesses create artificial persons? Answer: to get special treatment and special protections under the law granted by the state/government. In other words, they have asked for "special protection" such as they can't be personally sued if they hurt or kill someone. "Oops, so sorry, you can take my business but I can shield much of my assets personally so the person I hurt can't get it."

As such, when people ask for special treatment of their business (ie. incorporation) I have NO PROBLEM with the government attaching strings to the operation of said business. You want special treatment, fine, here is what you have to do.

At the point the business is created the humans have a choice that they consciously make, incorporate and accept the strings, OR put their skin in the game and operate as a DBA. This is where I philosophically hold my thinking. What has happened behind the scenes when the business was first created is often overlooked as a choice made by the business owner! He/she chose to ask for special treatment and as such I have no problem forcing them to do or not do certain things.

All of this is philosophical thought. It is just my thinking on whether or not to be upset at a certain condition. When rules are placed on corporations, which almost all of the businesses affected in this case are, then I am not very upset by the rule.

Regards and Happy 4th,

Doug

And I hear what you're saying and I have no problem with stipulations on taxes, depreciation, deductions, and other financial type conditions being placed on corporations in exchange for those other considerations. I do have a problem with social engineering and morality dictates being added on top of the pile of financial issues. They tend to affect the people who work for the company. They are government force on people. The tax and financial stuff tends to be the cost of doing business...the tradeoff of incorporation to the corporation.

In no way should laws you would want applied to you be applied to the proverbial mom and pop type businesses.

 

[24Carat]

No, the government we have now intrudes in matters well beyond its scope of delegated powers.

Me thinks the government needs desperately to be spanked.

 

[Tombs]

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.

All it says is that if they wish to deny you your right to defend yourself, they are responsible for your safety while you're on their property.

They have the choice of not denying an individual their basic rights which do not interfere in any way with business as usual. If they wish to be unreasonable and someone comes to harm as a result, it's perfectly reasonable to be able to bring charges against them for failing to provide protection inside of their GFZ.

This isn't like legally forcing them to allow protesters to disrupt their business.

It'll just result in stores taking down those ridiculous signs. I highly doubt you'll ever see a single case brought to court, because why would they want to risk it? The only reason they even do it in the first place is for insurance reasons, so once this is law, insurance companies are going to have to start revamping their approach.

 

[Libertarian01]

And I hear what you're saying and I have no problem with stipulations on taxes, depreciation, deductions, and other financial type conditions being placed on corporations in exchange for those other considerations. I do have a problem with social engineering and morality dictates being added on top of the pile of financial issues. They tend to affect the people who work for the company. They are government force on people. The tax and financial stuff tends to be the cost of doing business...the tradeoff of incorporation to the corporation.

In no way should laws you would want applied to you be applied to the proverbial mom and pop type businesses.

I think the tax regulations and liability protection are all that people think of when they chose to incorporate. They want all of the "good" stuff with none of the "bad" stuff. The good are the benefits, the bad is regulation(s).

They are forced to serve everyone equally, even blacks, Asians, and other minorities. Businesses are forced to have so many fire extinguishers, and mark the exits with those emergency green exit signs. Restaurants have a host of health regulations to follow. Some may be unnecessary while other may be critical. We could agree or disagree with many or none. My thought is that as we have tolerated many laws/ordinances regarding overall public safety this is no different than those.

Deep down I disagree with many laws such as this. However, I see the balance between a corporations desire for profit balanced against an individual human beings right to defend themselves. The onus placed upon the corporation is insignificant while the benefit to the human being is immeasurable in the event of needing a firearm for self protection.

As far as "mom & pop" businesses many of them do incorporate, so my sympathy for them is also minimal. The only difference between a small business and a large is infrastructure. And I DO think small businesses should be afforded leniency against over-regulation, and they are. For example, under current law a company is required to make reasonable accommodations for a disabled employee. Those accommodations are not to be overly burdensome to the business owner. As such, a company such as GM may be required to put in an elevator to the second floor for an employee who cannot use the stairs while a small mom & pop would not be forced to do so. In all fairness small businesses already suffer from many inequalities competing with larger businesses and I don't like seeing more added to them.

I don't see any better way to fight back against the Gun Free Zone nonsense. I don't agree with just banning them because a business should have the option of stupidly choosing such a course of action. However, with a law such as this it compels a review of such an option forcing those in power to ask themselves, "Do we really want to take on this risk?"

Regards and Happy 4th,

Doug

 

[Denny347]

Uh, guys, if you read the first link in the post, it says the law was changed at the last minute to say that a business cannot be sued if they fail to adopt a no firearms policy and are not grossly negligent. It says nothing about being able to sue a business that adopts a no firearms policy.

If you go to that link and click on the highlighted link to the bill, and then on the link to amendments to the bill, and open the amendment to read it, you will find that the final bill relates only to businesses which do not adopt a no firearms policy and that it protects them from being sued.

Good job DENNY!!!!!

 

[Doug]

Good job DENNY!!!!!

Maybe a lot of people don't want to live there, but you really need to visit reality once in a while.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Property owners can't decide or in any way impact your right to self protection (such infringement and enforcement is reserved exclusively to our governing rulers). If you choose to abide by their terms and use their property, you have decided, not them, to waive certain rights normally enjoyed in a public space or on your own property.

Property owners should have the right to dictate the terms of using their property, but that right is being further eroded with this new law.

Thank god somebody gets it.

 

[Cygnus]

Isn't this kinda like the Luby's case in Texas from way back when I was in grade elementary school?