Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents

[Deleted]

Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents
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.

...


More here: WEBPAGE LINK - Tennesean.com (part of the USA Today network)

[Deleted]

I like this bill.

If a business owner wants to restrict the rights of someone with a CCP, the business owner SHOULD BE responsible for actions the someone with a CCP CAN'T take due to the business owner's choice to not allow him/her to carry.

In other words, if you won't let "me" protect myself, then you are responsible for protecting me, and you should pay any damages that failure to do so incur.

Yup... I like it!

[fishy999]

Feb 2, 2016 22:35:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents
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.

...


More here: WEBPAGE LINK - Tennesean.com (part of the USA Today network)

And I thought Marsh Blackburn was the resident nut   Nevermind the legal insanity

I vote for 'idiot free zones'- can we have that?

[Deleted]

Feb 2, 2016 23:24:37 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Feb 2, 2016 22:35:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents
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.

...


More here: WEBPAGE LINK - Tennesean.com (part of the USA Today network)

And I thought Marsh Blackburn was the resident nut   Nevermind the legal insanity

I vote for 'idiot free zones'- can we have that?

Can people that aren't idiots sue them if they aren't allowed either?

[Deleted]

Why don't we only allow  governments to own business?  That way we wouldn't have troublesome business owners wanting to run a store the way they want to.

---------------> Communism for all, so all can be free!!!<-----------------

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Feb 3, 2016 0:12:47 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Why don't we only allow  governments to own business?  That way we wouldn't have troublesome business owners wanting to run a store the way they want to.

---------------> Communism for all, so all can be free!!!<-----------------

Brilliant! I love freedom!

[Deleted]

Feb 3, 2016 0:12:47 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Why don't we only allow  governments to own business?  That way we wouldn't have troublesome business owners wanting to run a store the way they want to.

---------------> Communism for all, so all can be free!!!<-----------------

Only one problem with your viewpoint: The government isn't telling the owner what to do. The choice is still up to the owner.

This law (if it becomes law) just says: If you are going to take away someone else's ability to protect themselves... you assume that responsibility, and can/will be held accountable if you fail.

[dondub]

I don't think I'd shop there. I like my bear and wild hog to be nicely wrapped in the cooler case.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 2, 2016 22:35:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

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.

Seriously? A black bear or a wild hog in a grocery store?

They couldn't think of a hypothetical situation any better than that in which a gun might be needed?

[happyhoix]

I think I could escape from a black bear or a wild hog easier than I can one of these armed idiots that live near me, so I would rather shop where there were no guns.

Wild animals usually try to run away from you, unless cornered. Just climb a car or a rack of shelves (if the hypothetical animal happens to get into the store) and I'm fine. Now a drunk redneck fighting with his GF or full of road rage and packing heat - harder to hide from that.

After all, we have a special kind of stupid armed redneck around here. Like the guy a couple weeks ago who was drunk and fighting with his GF and shot into a car that stopped to pick her up from the side of the road. Killed the driver and wounded the passenger, and all they'd done was try to help a distraught woman.

Hard to hide from that kind of idiot when they get loose in public, and all the other upstanding citizens with guns who would try to kill the original armed idiot should he start to shoot up the place.

I think I must live in some kind of hillbilly mecca, though, because apparently there are no drunk, angry, armed and irresponsible people living anywhere else in the USA.

[gregintenn]

Feb 3, 2016 2:44:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 2, 2016 22:35:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

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.

Seriously? A black bear or a wild hog in a grocery store?

They couldn't think of a hypothetical situation any better than that in which a gun might be needed?

A group of gangbangers from the hood didn't poll test too well.

[zibazinski]

I think what's sad is that we have let so many criminals and crazies just roam freely so that decent people don't feel safe anymore.

[gregintenn]

Feb 2, 2016 23:24:37 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Feb 2, 2016 22:35:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents
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.

...


More here: WEBPAGE LINK - Tennesean.com (part of the USA Today network)

And I thought Marsh Blackburn was the resident nut   Nevermind the legal insanity

I vote for 'idiot free zones'- can we have that?

You want to limit where you can go?

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 3, 2016 8:22:07 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Feb 3, 2016 2:44:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Seriously? A black bear or a wild hog in a grocery store?

They couldn't think of a hypothetical situation any better than that in which a gun might be needed?

A group of gangbangers from the hood didn't poll test too well.

Touche.

[Deleted]

Feb 3, 2016 8:25:47 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Feb 2, 2016 23:24:37 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

And I thought Marsh Blackburn was the resident nut   Nevermind the legal insanity

I vote for 'idiot free zones'- can we have that?

You want to limit where you can go?

  

[Deleted]

Feb 2, 2016 22:35:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents
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.

...


More here: WEBPAGE LINK - Tennesean.com (part of the USA Today network)

Reminds me of when the "No Firearms" signs came down from the Wal-Mart stores after they were successfully sued on those very same grounds.   The store patron wasn't attacked by an animal.  Of course that's dependent on perception. 

[Deleted]

Feb 3, 2016 8:14:36 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I think I could escape from a black bear or a wild hog easier than I can one of these armed idiots that live near me, so I would rather shop where there were no guns.

Wild animals usually try to run away from you, unless cornered. Just climb a car or a rack of shelves (if the hypothetical animal happens to get into the store) and I'm fine. Now a drunk redneck fighting with his GF or full of road rage and packing heat - harder to hide from that.

After all, we have a special kind of stupid armed redneck around here. Like the guy a couple weeks ago who was drunk and fighting with his GF and shot into a car that stopped to pick her up from the side of the road. Killed the driver and wounded the passenger, and all they'd done was try to help a distraught woman.

Hard to hide from that kind of idiot when they get loose in public, and all the other upstanding citizens with guns who would try to kill the original armed idiot should he start to shoot up the place.

I think I must live in some kind of hillbilly mecca, though, because apparently there are no drunk, angry, armed and irresponsible people living anywhere else in the USA.

The police officers I know will agree that domestic disputes are the most dangerous of all. Often the supposed victim will turn (with deadly intent) on the helping officer because he/she still loves his/her abusive partner. If your going to get involved in a domestic dispute you better be prepared, as there's no cure to being stupid. Blaming these disputes on a stereotype, or the weapon at hand, isn't too smart either.

[Opti]

Except for Walmart, how often is a gun needed in a grocery store?

[Deleted]

Feb 3, 2016 13:44:22 GMT -5 Opti said:

Except for Walmart, how often is a gun needed in a grocery store?

So far (both fingers crossed) I will never need the gun I carry, anywhere.  At least for people anyway.  I have shot a couple of aggressive dogs coming after me in the last 16 years while walking fence lines.

[gregintenn]

Feb 3, 2016 13:44:22 GMT -5 Opti said:

Except for Walmart, how often is a gun needed in a grocery store?

l don't often need the fire extinguisher in my house either.

[happyhoix]

Feb 3, 2016 13:41:37 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Feb 3, 2016 8:14:36 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I think I could escape from a black bear or a wild hog easier than I can one of these armed idiots that live near me, so I would rather shop where there were no guns.

Wild animals usually try to run away from you, unless cornered. Just climb a car or a rack of shelves (if the hypothetical animal happens to get into the store) and I'm fine. Now a drunk redneck fighting with his GF or full of road rage and packing heat - harder to hide from that.

After all, we have a special kind of stupid armed redneck around here. Like the guy a couple weeks ago who was drunk and fighting with his GF and shot into a car that stopped to pick her up from the side of the road. Killed the driver and wounded the passenger, and all they'd done was try to help a distraught woman.

Hard to hide from that kind of idiot when they get loose in public, and all the other upstanding citizens with guns who would try to kill the original armed idiot should he start to shoot up the place.

I think I must live in some kind of hillbilly mecca, though, because apparently there are no drunk, angry, armed and irresponsible people living anywhere else in the USA.

The police officers I know will agree that domestic disputes are the most dangerous of all. Often the supposed victim will turn (with deadly intent) on the helping officer because he/she still loves his/her abusive partner. If your going to get involved in a domestic dispute you better be prepared, as there's no cure to being stupid. Blaming these disputes on a stereotype, or the weapon at hand, isn't too smart either.

If the guy had a knife he'd have been running after the car trying to catch it so he could stab a tire. A bow and arrow, sling shot, or pointy stick would also have been pretty useless in trying to stop a car from speeding away from you.

Firing a gun at a fleeing car - much better odds that you'll hit something.  So I would say it makes a big difference that the particular weapon at hand this time was a gun. Nothing else could have been so lethal - except maybe a bazooka, or tank.

[fishy999]

Feb 2, 2016 22:38:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I like this bill.

If a business owner wants to restrict the rights of someone with a CCP, the business owner SHOULD BE responsible for actions the someone with a CCP CAN'T take due to the business owner's choice to not allow him/her to carry.

In other words, if you won't let "me" protect myself, then you are responsible for protecting me, and you should pay any damages that failure to do so incur.

Yup... I like it!

So I guess you have turned in your 'smaller government' credentials......

To put it plainly- YOU have decided to BLAME and HOLD RESPONSIBLE certain businesses for actions by criminals because of policies put into place by certain corporations- in other words the gun killers are not responsible for their actions- the stores are reponsible because of their carry policies.  

Know what- don't shop there.  They don't want paranoid gun clowns for customers.  Go somewhere else.  Got that?  If they don't want you there- then it is on you- nobody is responsible for protecting you and owe you jack shit.  Grow up- and I realize you are running out of room for that

[fishy999]

BTW there are ZERO rights in the Constitution to carry a gun onto private property.  Your liability theory is laughable.

[Deleted]

Feb 3, 2016 22:40:01 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Feb 2, 2016 22:38:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I like this bill.

If a business owner wants to restrict the rights of someone with a CCP, the business owner SHOULD BE responsible for actions the someone with a CCP CAN'T take due to the business owner's choice to not allow him/her to carry.

In other words, if you won't let "me" protect myself, then you are responsible for protecting me, and you should pay any damages that failure to do so incur.

Yup... I like it!

So I guess you have turned in your 'smaller government' credentials......

To put it plainly- YOU have decided to BLAME and HOLD RESPONSIBLE certain businesses for actions by criminals because of policies put into place by certain corporations- in other words the gun killers are not responsible for their actions- the stores are reponsible because of their carry policies.  

Know what- don't shop there.  They don't want paranoid gun clowns for customers.  Go somewhere else.  Got that?  If they don't want you there- then it is on you- nobody is responsible for protecting you and owe you jack shit.  Grow up- and I realize you are running out of room for that

Nope. I still like "smaller government". I just also like people taking responsibility for their choices. If you are going to make the choice to not allow guns, the responsibility for patron's safety should be your responsibility.

As to your second paragraph... Nope. I decided nothing. But... that said... blame should be on the one that disallowed guns so a person with a legal right to carry CAN'T... and is thereby denied his ability to protect himself.

The gun killer is responsible for killing. The store is responsible for not allowing people to defend themselves. This isn't exactly rocket science.

I agree with part of your third paragraph. No one else IS responsible for protecting you... you are responsible for that. That's why you got a CCP... so you could carry a weapon and be ready to defend yourself... Until someone won't LET you protect yourself. Once they deny you that right, they assume that duty.

[fishy999]

If you walk into a posted 'gun free zone' then you assume the risk- so don't go in.

I guess you think employers should be able to be sued as well for not letting their employees carry weapons at work

[gregintenn]

Feb 4, 2016 20:26:29 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

If you walk into a posted 'gun free zone' then you assume the risk- so don't go in.

I guess you think employers should be able to be sued as well for not letting their employees carry weapons at work

Absolutely!

[Deleted]

Feb 3, 2016 22:40:01 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Feb 2, 2016 22:38:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I like this bill.

If a business owner wants to restrict the rights of someone with a CCP, the business owner SHOULD BE responsible for actions the someone with a CCP CAN'T take due to the business owner's choice to not allow him/her to carry.

In other words, if you won't let "me" protect myself, then you are responsible for protecting me, and you should pay any damages that failure to do so incur.

Yup... I like it!

So I guess you have turned in your 'smaller government' credentials......

To put it plainly- YOU have decided to BLAME and HOLD RESPONSIBLE certain businesses for actions by criminals because of policies put into place by certain corporations- in other words the gun killers are not responsible for their actions- the stores are reponsible because of their carry policies.  

Know what- don't shop there.  They don't want paranoid gun clowns for customers.  Go somewhere else.  Got that?  If they don't want you there- then it is on you- nobody is responsible for protecting you and owe you jack shit.  Grow up- and I realize you are running out of room for that

has Richard ever been for smaller government?  I see him a lot wanting bigger government, I can't remember him ever wanting smaller govt.  Not that he hasn't I just don't remember seeing it.

[gregintenn]

Feb 4, 2016 20:26:29 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

If you walk into a posted 'gun free zone' then you assume the risk- so don't go in.

I guess you think employers should be able to be sued as well for not letting their employees carry weapons at work

Have you ever considered that criminals might not read and respect that sign?

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2016 20:26:29 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

If you walk into a posted 'gun free zone' then you assume the risk- so don't go in.

I guess you think employers should be able to be sued as well for not letting their employees carry weapons at work

Only if the employee gets harmed and could have protected himself with his gun otherwise.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2016 20:37:53 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Feb 3, 2016 22:40:01 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

So I guess you have turned in your 'smaller government' credentials......

To put it plainly- YOU have decided to BLAME and HOLD RESPONSIBLE certain businesses for actions by criminals because of policies put into place by certain corporations- in other words the gun killers are not responsible for their actions- the stores are reponsible because of their carry policies.  

Know what- don't shop there.  They don't want paranoid gun clowns for customers.  Go somewhere else.  Got that?  If they don't want you there- then it is on you- nobody is responsible for protecting you and owe you jack shit.  Grow up- and I realize you are running out of room for that

has Richard ever been for smaller government?  I see him a lot wanting bigger government, I can't remember him ever wanting smaller govt.  Not that he hasn't I just don't remember seeing it.

Yup. I'm always about smaller government.

The right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed... by writing a law that says individuals can infringe on people's rights, the government has given tacit agreement to the infringement of the right to bear arms. Now... I won't argue against a person's right to control who is and isn't armed in their own home... but a public business is not a private residence.