Tennessee to hold Voluntary Gun Free Zones Responsible for Harm

[Bill of Rights]

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

If you're referring to Killeen, Texas, I'm not sure how you make the two connect. In that case, Texas law at the time forbade carry of handguns by anyone who didn't have a badge. Result: lots of people were killed when a madman drove his truck through the front of the restaurant and got out and started walking around the room, shooting helpless patrons in the head. Dr. Susanna Gratia Hupp was in the restaurant with her parents, both of whom died, in part because she had decided to allow the law to disarm her, and left her gun in her vehicle.
Contrast this with a situation where the law says you can carry, and a business is allowed to forbid you to do so on their property, but is liable for any injury you suffer as a result of that policy.

From my perspective, yes, the business should have that right, though governmental entities should not have that power. If the business is preventing you from protecting yourself, they bear the liability for injuries resulting from that decision, just as they would if they failed to put out a "wet floor" sign and you fell because you didn't know someone had spilled something, or they'd just mopped. Another analogy would be if they did not require hearing protection in an area with known loud noises, or eye protection if that is needed. If they have a reasonable means of knowing of a hazard and don't do anything to mitigate it, that's on them.
What hazard? The one that exists with this sign

but not this one

Blessings,
Bill

 

[chipbennett]

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

I fail to see why this occurrence is problematic. Posted "GFZs" attract those with ill intent. See: Waffle House, the movie theater in Aurora, elementary schools, etc. The creation of the impression of a disarmed-victim zone facilitates the creation of victims in said areas.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Does this include, say, a property owner dictating that persons of a certain color, religion, etc. may not access their property?

If so, that's fine. It would be consistent, at least.

Personally, I'd prefer to see "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", and let the market decide how to respond. Unfortunately, we live in a regulated environment where "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" has been superseded by government decree. Since I believe in the right of equal protection under law, I cannot support arbitrary refusal of access to property to some people, while the state protects the access of other arbitrary persons.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

I would think that believers in limited government would moreso favor the removal of legal imprimatur of posted "no guns" signs.

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[ATM]

Does this include, say, a property owner dictating that persons of a certain color, religion, etc. may not access their property?

If so, that's fine. It would be consistent, at least.

Personally, I'd prefer to see "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", and let the market decide how to respond. Unfortunately, we live in a regulated environment where "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" has been superseded by government decree. Since I believe in the right of equal protection under law, I cannot support arbitrary refusal of access to property to some people, while the state protects the access of other arbitrary persons.

Yes.

Laws should prohibit violations of rights, not mandate entitlement to property access.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

f 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.

"Certain rights"?

 

[ATM]

"Certain rights"?

Yes. Whatever rights you are willing to waive to abide by whatever terms they chose to impose as a condition of using their property.

It would be a consensual agreement. If no agreement, everyone parts ways with all their rights intact, and no State intrusion needed to force either party to comply against their will.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What if the property owner does not want "certain people" to enter on to the property?

 

[pudly]

What if the property owner does not want "certain people" to enter on to the property?

Like gun owners?

 

[KLB]

What if the property owner does not want "certain people" to enter on to the property?

Yes.

Laws should prohibit violations of rights, not mandate entitlement to property access.

I believe he already answered that.

 

[2A_Tom]

Disallowing someone's civil rights should not be allowed.

Asking someone to leave or barring their entrance because of their attitude, attire, behavior &ct. should be allowed. If I act out in any way that is not acceptable to the property owner, I am abusing his rights and am trespassing if I do not leave at their request.

 

[chipbennett]

Disallowing someone's civil rights should not be allowed.

Asking someone to leave or barring their entrance because of their attitude, attire, behavior &ct. should be allowed. If I act out in any way that is not acceptable to the property owner, I am abusing his rights and am trespassing if I do not leave at their request.

In an ideal world, I support property owners' rights to allow or trespass any person for any reason, and business owners' right of association (or non-association) when engaging in business. Thus, in an ideal world, I support "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Society, through market forces, has the right and the power to determine whether that attitude is appropriate and tolerable.

But, we don't live in that ideal world. Government got involved.

 

[2A_Tom]

That sounds very libertarian, but I follow a different thesis that counts all men my equal until they prove themselves otherwise.

Some animals, more equal than others?

 

[chipbennett]

That sounds very libertarian, but I follow a different thesis that counts all men my equal until they prove themselves otherwise.

Some animals, more equal than others?

That, unfortunately, is exactly the environment that our government has created. Some animals truly are more equal than others, in explicit violation of the equal protection clause.

 

[ATM]

That sounds very libertarian, but I follow a different thesis that counts all men my equal until they prove themselves otherwise.

Some animals, more equal than others?

You'd be free to follow that in a libertarian world, and I'd support you for doing so... voluntarily. You couldn't mandate that upon others.