Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,069 Posts
It wood be GREAT if we had this in Warshington state.

Provided those of us could SECEDE that don't subscribe to the fools in Olympia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fergusson

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
This law is simply the best of the best.. People who chose to make their establishment a GFZ and strip law abiding (Legal to carry) citizens (Who are also their patrons upon entering the door) their legal right to self defense should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if said individuals are injured or killed in their establishment.

I can guarantee if one were to ask the owner of the establishment what they were hoping to accomplish by making their establishment a GFZ they would say "We do not want mass killings" "So you believe when the terrorist or mentally unstable individual with an AR-15 and 1000 rounds of ammo approaches your door and sees the no guns sign they will simply go away? really?

It just goes to show how clueless they really are.

They don't realize that all the GFZ does is round up a lot of innocent people for the slaughter in which they will have NO means of self defense. It still amazes me to this day how some folks just don't understand that legally armed citizens are the FIRST line of defense in an active shooter situation. If there is no LE there at the time of the first shot, the avg response time is 5-7 minutes which means they are getting there at the conclusion of the incident or after it is over and guess what.. there are many many individuals dead or seriously wounded.

I applaud this law and we can only hope to see more of these in our country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,261 Posts
They let the families of gun violence victims sue firearms manufactures so, why not reciprocate and allow people to sue the places that are gun free and do not offer any protection for their clientele?

Fair is fair after all, isn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
Before someone starts a discourse on business owners' property rights, we should be reminded that property owners, if they invite people on to their premises, are subject to suit for negligent (or, certainly, intentional) maintenance, if one is injured as a result. For instance, if visitors are required to remove their shoes, and then one steps on glass and is cut, then the owner would be subject to legal action for recovery for damages.

Of course, negligence (or intention) will be issues, foreseeability and causation are valid issues and will be argued, and property owners may or may not win, but those are questions and answers which will vary from case to case. It is certainly not true that owners never bear responsibility for what happens to invited visitors to their business. Instead, the rights of the business owners will have to be balanced against the rights of their invited visitors. As this law develops, we will have to discover what courts say about the parameters of this responsibility.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,705 Posts
The sprit of this law is great. This law Fights Fire With Fire. Damn the PC!

It should be expanded I think, to exempt permit holding employees from ANY repercussions or reprisals such as being fired due to bogus company/business policy.

This type of law tends to be buried (not covered) by mainstream media. I intend to send a link to this article and the law to EVERY state representative and sheriff in MO as well as the St. Louis Post Dispatch and all local TV stations.

They need to GET this message!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
They let the families of gun violence victims sue firearms manufactures so, why not reciprocate and allow people to sue the places that are gun free and do not offer any protection for their clientele?

Fair is fair after all, isn't it?
Suing firearms manufacturers is a different kind of problem. And besides, I believe that if a firearm was defective, or improperly labelled, or otherwise provided some unexpected danger that the manufacturers should have done something about, then the statutory protections would not apply anyway.

It is not true that (as the anti-self-defense folks claim) makers are protected against any lawsuit. Manufacturers are only protected against suits where no fault of the manufacturer is reasonably presented... (other than just being in the firearms business.)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
374 Posts
Before someone starts a discourse on business owners' property rights, we should be reminded that property owners, if they invite people on to their premises, are subject to suit for negligent (or, certainly, intentional) maintenance, if one is injured as a result. For instance, if visitors are required to remove their shoes, and then one steps on glass and is cut, then the owner would be subject to legal action for recovery for damages.

Of course, negligence (or intention) will be issues, foreseeability and causation are valid issues and will be argued, and property owners may or may not win, but those are questions and answers which will vary from case to case. It is certainly not true that owners never bear responsibility for what happens to invited visitors to their business. Instead, the rights of the business owners will have to be balanced against the rights of their invited visitors. As this law develops, we will have to discover what courts say about the parameters of this responsibility.
I came here to post essentially the same but found that you have saved me the trouble. While this sounds good to we gun owners, the law faces an uncertain future. My guess is that, once it starts up the appeal trail (and it eventually will), it won't stand up (and probably shouldn't.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dugo

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
I came here to post essentially the same but found that you have saved me the trouble. While this sounds good to we gun owners, the law faces an uncertain future. My guess is that, once it starts up the appeal trail (and it eventually will), it won't stand up (and probably shouldn't.)
You may be right, and arguments will be made, but I would guess differently. I suspect that the law will stand but be hard for the customers to win... at least at first. I would also guess that, of course, there probably won't be many of these cases brought to begin with, so it will be a slow development.

Much will be done with the foreseeability issue. (Edit: Much will be done also -- defensively at trial -- with the issue of what is reasonable regarding precautions an owner could have taken.) It will be interesting to see how it develops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,294 Posts
It sounds like it doesn't go quite far enough. One should also be able to sue if they had to leave their gun in their vehicle and are attacked while walking to or from the actual gun-free zone. But it's a start.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,705 Posts
You may be right, and arguments will be made, but I would guess differently. I suspect that the law will stand but be hard for the customers to win... at least at first. I would also guess that, of course, there probably won't be many of these cases brought to begin with, so it will be a slow development.

Much will be done with the foreseeability issue. (Edit: Much will be done also -- defensively at trial -- with the issue of what is reasonable regarding precautions an owner could have taken.) It will be interesting to see how it develops.
This law may be symbolic but since it did pass. I have to assume it was the will of the people to enact.

If for no other reason, it may give pause to some businesses that posting a No Firearms Allowed signs may have unexpected implications for them.

Suits may be filed and will certainly be challenged but the burden of proof now seems to be on businesses that choose, to post dumb signs, sometimes ignorantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAJOkie and dugo

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,274 Posts
Law or not, one will still have to convince a jury that the store is responsible when you voluntarily disarmed and made yourself a victim when you had every opportunity to walk away unharmed. The store owner may have demanded you disarm, but it was you who actually chose to do so and place yourself in that position.

Civil suits require the defendant to be "more guilty than not," at least 51% guilty. Since you, as the hapless victim voluntarily disarmed, that 51% may be more difficult to prove than most expect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
739 Posts
Law or not, one will still have to convince a jury thaout he store is responsible when you voluntarily disarmed and made yourself a victim when you had every opportunity to walk away unharmed. The store owner may have demanded you disarm, but it was you who actually chose to do so and place yourself in that position.

Civil suits require the defendant to be "more guilty than not," at least 51% guilty. Since you, as the hapless victim voluntarily disarmed, that 51% may be more difficult to prove than most expect.
I don't know.. the Bakery claim that the customer could have gone elsewhere didn't fly. How would that same claim that the customer could have gone elsewhere without disarming fly if they were shot in the businesses' shop by an intruder?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,274 Posts
Don't try mixing apples and oranges until it becomes case law, which is never black & white when it reaches court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dugo

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
Law or not, one will still have to convince a jury thaout he store is responsible when you voluntarily disarmed and made yourself a victim when you had every opportunity to walk away unharmed. The store owner may have demanded you disarm, but it was you who actually chose to do so and place yourself in that position.

Civil suits require the defendant to be "more guilty than not," at least 51% guilty. Since you, as the hapless victim voluntarily disarmed, that 51% may be more difficult to prove than most expect.
Doesn't Tennessee have "comparative negligence"? If so, then any negligence (or "assumption") by the victim would be balanced against that of the store owner, to reduce any recovery from the store owner. -- But then, I am not sure this would necessarily follow the pattern of negligence law in the courtroom ...... Hmmm ... (...Noting OldVet's "apples and oranges" comment above...)

But anyway, yes, good reminder; a jury still has to be convinced - of each and every element required to support the finding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
This law may be symbolic but since it did pass. I have to assume it was the will of the people to enact.

If for no other reason, it may give pause to some businesses that posting a No Firearms Allowed signs may have unexpected implications for them.

Suits may be filed and will certainly be challenged but the burden of proof now seems to be on businesses that choose, to post dumb signs, sometimes ignorantly.
Well, technically, I guess the burden of proof in court will probably be on the customer to prove the case (unless the statute says different, but that would be arguable) -- BUT you are right in the sense that the business owner might now have the burden to think about how to defend against such a suit, before acting to restrict customers' personal ability to protect themselves. And, the business owner will now have the incentive to think about the customers' safety in a more realistic way.

Will be looking out for the first case brought under this statute ... But even if it is largely symbolic, I'd agree that this might motivate such owners to become a little less ignorant, and that should certainly result in fewer businesses posting.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top