Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Login / Join

Tennessee Gun Rights

Blan37

Member
1,800
64
SW Ohio
Yeah, read about it on a concealed carry website. I like it. Wish they'd do it here along with getting rid of the duty to retreat BS.
 

Wmiller07

Member
1,132
30
Not sure about this one. I'm as pro 2nd amendment as they come but shouldn't a private business have the right to do what he or she wants just like I have the right to not buy something in their store? Now if we are talking public places I'm all for it.
 

Mike

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
15,840
223
Up Nort
I agree with Wmiller. A private business is off limits. Liberty. It's as ridiculous as gun manufacturers being held responsible in murder cases that use their firearms to commit the crime.
 

Blan37

Member
1,800
64
SW Ohio
Guess I hadn't considered it from those angles. I just really hate it when a place is posted.

But yeah, better to try to change their minds than infringe on their liberty.


 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
38,841
260
I absolutely agree with this legislation and don't believe it goes against a businesses rights. The business can still post their business and not allow people to carry firearms. They retain that right. The law simply says that if a CCW holder is stripped of his right to carry by a business and something happens the business is liable.

This likely stems from the colorado shooting. Some of the wounded filed a class action against AMC theaters saying that since AMC had a no gun policy AMC was responsible for their protection. They lost the lawsuit and now get this, AMC is suing them for 700k in legal fees.

I am a firm believer that if a business made a choice to prohibit firearms and then something happens to their consumers, they should be 100% liable even if they provide armed security. Their must be consequences for businesses stripping a persons constitutional right to protect themselves and their family.

Once they removed the alcohol serving stipulation and you can carry where alcohol is being served as long as you're not drinking I quit looking for signs. The only place I don't carry is government buildings, schools, etc as that's an actual crime. For private businesses the most that can happen is they try to get trespassing charges pressed against me. Odds are they'll just ask me to leave. I'm not giving up my family's security because some liberal in an office thinks it's good PR to have a sign.
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
38,841
260
I agree with Wmiller. A private business is off limits. Liberty. It's as ridiculous as gun manufacturers being held responsible in murder cases that use their firearms to commit the crime.

It's not the same because the gun manufactures didn't make a policy decision that lead to damages. There's no direct correlation.

It's not an infringement on liberty because the business is still allowed to post their business. That choice wasn't removed. Their simply te provisions for it if something happens. The business made a decision that impacted their customers, if the customer suffered damages because of that decision the business should be liable.

For example. Say I own a roller coaster and make the decision that I don't like the chest belts and remove them. Someone falls out. I'm liable. A decision I made directly resulted in damages.

I don't want to plow my parking lot and cancel my snow removal contract, someone falls. I'm liable.

I put up a sign saying no shoes can be worn inside, but I don't clean up glass that someone broke. I'm liable.

It's all about a free will decision I made that led to damages.

The same can't be said for gun manufactures where their gun was used in a crime. There's no direct correlation for damages.
 

Wmiller07

Member
1,132
30
I absolutely agree with this legislation and don't believe it goes against a businesses rights. The business can still post their business and not allow people to carry firearms. They retain that right. The law simply says that if a CCW holder is stripped of his right to carry by a business and something happens the business is liable.

This likely stems from the colorado shooting. Some of the wounded filed a class action against AMC theaters saying that since AMC had a no gun policy AMC was responsible for their protection. They lost the lawsuit and now get this, AMC is suing them for 700k in legal fees.

I am a firm believer that if a business made a choice to prohibit firearms and then something happens to their consumers, they should be 100% liable even if they provide armed security. Their must be consequences for businesses stripping a persons constitutional right to protect themselves and their family.

Once they removed the alcohol serving stipulation and you can carry where alcohol is being served as long as you're not drinking I quit looking for signs. The only place I don't carry is government buildings, schools, etc as that's an actual crime. For private businesses the most that can happen is they try to get trespassing charges pressed against me. Odds are they'll just ask me to leave. I'm not giving up my family's security because some liberal in an office thinks it's good PR to have a sign.

As usual I disagree. It's the same as saying the affordable healthcare act still gives you the right to not have health insurance. However if you use that right there is a tax imposed on you. Just like at my house there is no provision for either the 1st or 2nd amendment. If you come in my house and start swearing at my wife and kids or I just decide I don't like you I reserve the right to Uncle Phil your butt right on out.
 

"J"

Git Off My Lawn
Supporting Member
56,743
274
North Carolina
My second amendment right is just as important as my first amendment right, they can't stop one, so why should I have stop the other???
The only thing I see wrong is they make the private sector liable, they better make the public places as well...
 

Wmiller07

Member
1,132
30
You have no 1st amendment right in a private building. The 1st amendment gives you the right to say what you want and not be prosecuted by the government. Start swearing and being belligerent in a store and see how long u last.
 

Mike

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
15,840
223
Up Nort
It's not the same because the gun manufactures didn't make a policy decision that lead to damages. There's no direct correlation.

It's not an infringement on liberty because the business is still allowed to post their business. That choice wasn't removed. Their simply te provisions for it if something happens. The business made a decision that impacted their customers, if the customer suffered damages because of that decision the business should be liable.

For example. Say I own a roller coaster and make the decision that I don't like the chest belts and remove them. Someone falls out. I'm liable. A decision I made directly resulted in damages.

I don't want to plow my parking lot and cancel my snow removal contract, someone falls. I'm liable.

I put up a sign saying no shoes can be worn inside, but I don't clean up glass that someone broke. I'm liable.

It's all about a free will decision I made that led to damages.

The same can't be said for gun manufactures where their gun was used in a crime. There's no direct correlation for damages.

Didn't say it was the same. I said it was "as ridiculous as".
 

"J"

Git Off My Lawn
Supporting Member
56,743
274
North Carolina
Where does it say on their establishment I give up my right to free speech?
Go any Walmart and your statement will be a mute point....
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
38,841
260
Didn't say it was the same. I said it was "as ridiculous as".

I don't think so. I think it's ridiculous that businesses can make a policy without being liable for those decisions. Especially when it comes to a persons right of security for themselves and their family. The major reason that businesses post those signs is they believe it's a liability to have individuals in their business with a CCW. This establishes a liability by purposefully making their environment less safe. The same as if a business created any other hazard that they would be liable for. If they create an unsafe environment they should be liable for any damages that occur as a result.
 

Wmiller07

Member
1,132
30
Where does it say on their establishment I give up my right to free speech?
Go any Walmart and your statement will be a mute point....

Using that scenario say someone goes into walmart and starts walking around saying walmart sucks go shop at target. Does walmart not have the right to remove that person?
 

Wmiller07

Member
1,132
30
I don't think so. I think it's ridiculous that businesses can make a policy without being liable for those decisions. Especially when it comes to a persons right of security for themselves and their family. The major reason that businesses post those signs is they believe it's a liability to have individuals in their business with a CCW. This establishes a liability by purposefully making their environment less safe. The same as if a business created any other hazard that they would be liable for. If they create an unsafe environment they should be liable for any damages that occur as a result.

If that's the case then the same should be for your home. I wouldn't let someone I didn't know very well in my house with a gun. Should I be held liable if someone shoots him?
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
38,841
260
If that's the case then the same should be for your home. I wouldn't let someone I didn't know very well in my house with a gun. Should I be held liable if someone shoots him?

Your home is not a public place where anyone can come and go. One could argue that by screening those you allow in your home you took a reasonable amount of security to prevent it. While you failed you made an attempt to keep that person safe by vetting visitors through a trust relationship.

These businesses post signs risking your safety then make no attempt to provide personal security or safety. They can't create a risk and then not accept liability or attempt to negate that risk.. Same as if you had a swimming pool. You have to put up a fence and take reasonable measures to prevent injury caused by the hazard you created. And even with a fence you're likely still liable even if someone trespasses and drowns.
 

Wmiller07

Member
1,132
30
I'm sure there is a case about the swimming pool but that doesn't make it right. Also you have the ability to choose which stores you shop at. No one is forcing you to go into that store. You can choose to frequent a store that doesn't post those signs just like they should be able to post the sign if they desire (as dumb as it may be).
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
38,841
260
I'm sure there is a case about the swimming pool but that doesn't make it right. Also you have the ability to choose which stores you shop at. No one is forcing you to go into that store. You can choose to frequent a store that doesn't post those signs just like they should be able to post the sign if they desire (as dumb as it may be).

To a point. Until the vast majority of stores put up signs and your shopping is extremely limited. We've already established in this country that you should not feel discriminated against by a businesses to a point where you have to shop elsewhere. There's plenty of laws regarding the open use rights of public businesses and a persons right to patronize them.

I don't disagree that a business has a right to post a sign. I completely agree. But they should also be liable for that decision just like any other decision they make.