Inevitable backlash.

[beevul]

Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents

Joel Ebert, [e-mail] 7:45 a.m. CST January 16, 2016

If a Tennessee grocery store bans guns on its property and a black bear or wild hog kills or injures a person who otherwise would be carrying his or her gun, the gun owner would be allowed to sue the property owner if a newly introduced bill became law.

Sponsored by Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, Senate Bill 1736 has a very specific purpose.

“It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property,” the bill states.

To accomplish that goal, the legislation allows any Tennessean with a valid gun permit to sue a property owner in the event of injury or death provided the incident occurred while in a gun-free zone.

The legislation places responsibility on the business or property owner of the gun-free area to protect the gun owner from any incidents that occur with any “invitees,” trespassers and employees found on the property, as well as vicious and wild animals and “defensible man-made and natural hazards.”

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/15/bill-allows-suits-over-gun-free-zone-incidents/78862948/

Now, lets talk about 'tipping points'...

[enough]

1. Which way do you see this tipping? (nt)

[beevul]

3. I think this is most likely one of the first of many...

I think this is most likely one of the first of many such attempts at legislation aimed at this specific topic.

If you interfere with people taking their own reasonable precautions with respect to their own personal safety, you then take on at least some responsibility for it, morally and ethically, in my view.

[Human101948]

2. As a business owner I would gladly make my busines gun free...

and pay for insurance to cover these gun grifters.

[DonP]

4. "Gun Grifters" LoL, we'll have to add that to our list

[Human101948]

5. The insurance would be minimal...

umbrella policies are very reasonable. And the chances of a scenario where a customer would need to use a gun would be very slim indeed despite the paranoid fantasies of most people who want to carry guns everywhere they go.

[DonP]

7. "very reasonable" = $300+ a year.

The poor people would like to thank you for being so "considerate" to their needs.

I guess only well to do people should have the option of self defense.

Funny, that's what a lot of local sheriff's used to think in the South not all that long ago too. Nice company to keep.

[Duckhunter935]

9. Yep

[beergood]

6. im against this bill

private business should be allowed to choose whether or not they allow firearms on their property.

business that are gun free will change their policy for fear of being sued.

[beevul]

8. Your position...

Is that businesses should be able to make decisions like this, with no duty to those who the decisions effect, which is bullshit.

Businesses that go gun free have plenty of options insurance wise.

[beergood]

11. i see your point

but on this topic we have agree to disagree. cheers and good night

[virginia mountainman]

10. its simple really..

If you run a business, and you REFUSE to allow customers the ability to defend themselves effectively..

Than you should provide effective protection too those customers. If you cannot, than you are liable for any harm that comes to them.

You willingly took up that responsibility when you disarmed them.