New TN Law: Gun Free Zone = Can be sued by those hurt by inability to defend themselves (1 Viewer)

[[icon]]

Heading into law this Friday is Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1736, which will put into action something gun owners have been encouraging for years.

As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.



Make a business decision that Takes away someone's ability to defend themselves? Face the legal consequences if that affects them.

 

[sho nuff]

What a stupid law.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

This should go well

 

[RandyDB]

Maybe the gun owner is at fault for choosing to enter a gun free zone.

 

[Philo]

Great idea, love it.

 

[TheAristocrat]

What a stupid law.

Why?  You could sue if you entered a Pro-Gun zone and suffered injury, death, economic loss, etc from a person carrying.

Isn't it also fair that someone who could conceal and carry be able to sue if they suffered the same types of loss in those nice, quaint gun-free zones?

Or is it just because this law doesn't advance your team to victory in the ultimate game of trading favors?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Next time I'm in a 7-eleven I'm going to snag my shirt on the door and sue them for making me wear shirt and shoes.

And if I get hurt in there I'm going to sue them for not allowing me to bring my motorcycle into the store for a quick getaway.

This is the dumbest law.

 

[[icon]]

Next time I'm in a 7-eleven I'm going to snag my shirt on the door and sue them for making me wear shirt and shoes.

And if I get hurt in there I'm going to sue them for not allowing me to bring my motorcycle into the store for a quick getaway.

This is the dumbest law.

Wearing shirt and shoes is the same as the right to defend yourself? I feel like we MAY be looking at apples and oranges here. 

I look forward to more states adopting this policy. Question is, does it impact companies with a gun free zone policy?

 

[NutterButter]

The one person this might actually happen to in the next 10 years says tia

 

[MaxThreshold]

This seems really, really dumb.  I'm all for CC, but c'mon already.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Wearing shirt and shoes is the same as the right to defend yourself? I feel like we MAY be looking at apples and oranges here. 

I look forward to more states adopting this policy. Question is, does it impact companies with a gun free zone policy?

If I don't want to wear a shirt then I don't go in places that require a shirt.  If I want to carry a gun then I don't go in places that don't allow guns.

But I can see why people would be in favor of this law.  I mean, it's great for all the internet rambos out there that would shrivel up in a corner when actually put into a dangerous situation but can now say "guys I would have totally taken care of that if it weren't for the rules and stuff".

 

[MaxThreshold]

If I don't want to wear a shirt then I don't go in places that require a shirt.  If I want to carry a gun then I don't go in places that don't allow guns.

But I can see why people would be in favor of this law.  I mean, it's great for all the internet rambos out there that would shrivel up in a corner when actually put into a dangerous situation but can now say "guys I would have totally taken care of that if it weren't for the rules and stuff".

I don't care what the rest of you say about @FreeBaGeL.  This sum##### knows what he's talking about.

 

[need2know]

I'm gonna get strapped up and go check it out 

 

[joffer]

Great idea, love it.

Good example of how bad it is

 

[joffer]

It would take time and effort to come up with a bigger waste of time for a state legislature

 

[rascal]

Gun owners stupidity increasese exponentially with the number of guns they own.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I'd happily vote this law if it was called the "I'm a tough guy only when I have my gun law"

 

[The Commish]

I feel like the next step is "gun free" areas having waivers for any/all who enter...if they don't sign, they don't get in  Plenty of petulance going on in the gun arena huh??

 

[fantasycurse42]

If I'm a business owner and I don't want guns in my place of business, that's my call... It's that ####### simple - you don't like it? Don't patronize my business.

 

[Lester Burnham]

If I'm a business owner and I don't want guns in my place of business, that's my call... It's that ####### simple - you don't like it? Don't patronize my business.

Or just carry concealed so you can't tell.  I know a LOT of people who carry into DC & MD. You'd never know they had a gun on them if you saw them. Women in skirts carry in large numbers and people are none the wiser.

 

[James Daulton]

Has our country really come to this?  Unless you're allowed to trade lead with someone else you can sue?

Jesus Christ some of us are backwards ### hillbillies.

 

[NutterButter]

This seems really, really dumb.  I'm all for CC, but c'mon already.

whoever this is, what have you done with max?

 

[flapgreen]

Has our country really come to this?  Unless you're allowed to trade lead with someone else you can sue?

Jesus Christ some of us are backwards ### hillbillies.

Come to what?  People sued mcdonald's years ago and won millions because of hot coffee.  NOW you're bothered by this  because you're anti-gun?  This suing garbage has been going on for decades.  This isn't a new thing.   Do you even live in the United States bro? 

 

[James Daulton]

Come to what?  People sued mcdonald's years ago and won millions because of hot coffee.  NOW you're bothered by this  because you're anti-gun?  This suing garbage has been going on for decades.  This isn't a new thing.   Do you even live in the United States bro? 

I think the suing culture is nuts but even though I'm anti-gun this law makes even less sense than the (don't put the plastic bag over your head) warning on everything.  Are guns really that important?

 

[joffer]

Come to what?  People sued mcdonald's years ago and won millions because of hot coffee. 

JFC  

have you ever seen the details of this case?

 

[dparker713]

Come to what?  People sued mcdonald's years ago and won millions because of hot coffee.  NOW you're bothered by this  because you're anti-gun?  This suing garbage has been going on for decades.  This isn't a new thing.   Do you even live in the United States bro? 

You might want to look into the coffee case before you dismiss it as frivolous.  There was a reason the award was nearly entirely punitive damages.

 

[sho nuff]

Come to what?  People sued mcdonald's years ago and won millions because of hot coffee.  NOW you're bothered by this  because you're anti-gun?  This suing garbage has been going on for decades.  This isn't a new thing.   Do you even live in the United States bro? 

Yes, I live in the US where a business should be allowed to say they don't want guns in their business and not face charges if some donk gets roughed up and can't fire a few shots.

Then again, Im not shocked the "party of small government" wants more government intrusion.

 

[Capella]

JFC  

have you ever seen the details of this case?

Definitely not. 

You can always tell the people with zero knowledge of the law when they start tossing out the "well Mac-donalds got sued for some hot coffee" line. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Has our country really come to this?  Unless you're allowed to trade lead with someone else you can sue?

Jesus Christ some of us are backwards ### hillbillies.

Lots of really dumb lawsuits in this world. This shouldn't surprise anybody. 

Wonder how many people that oppose this law oppose being able to sue gun manufacturers. 

 

[The Future Champs]

Amazing.  Some people who are always complaining about frivolous lawsuits think this law is a great idea.

 

[Ignoramus]

You could sue if you entered a Pro-Gun zone and suffered injury, death, economic loss, etc from a person carrying.

Huh?

So if I'm shopping at a local store that is not a gun-free zone and someone busts in and shoots me, I can sue the store?  How come we don't hear more about companies going bankrupt from these lawsuits?

 

[[icon]]

Lots of childish name calling. 

Not lots of discussion. 

Buffalo Wild Wings is a national chain who have a corporate policy of posting no carry zones... Does this law impact thier policy? Or do they accept the liability that if there is an incident and a person who typically carries concealed is harmed in a TN location and sues the company for damages incurred due to corporate policy infringing on their legally protected right to carry? 

 

[NutterButter]

Lots of really dumb lawsuits in this world. This shouldn't surprise anybody. 

Wonder how many people that oppose this law oppose being able to sue gun manufacturers. 

Yeah, suing gun manufacturers is pretty dumb as well

 

[NutterButter]

Lots of childish name calling. 

Not lots of discussion. 

Buffalo Wild Wings is a national chain who have a corporate policy of posting no carry zones... Does this law impact thier policy? Or do they accept the liability that if there is an incident and a person who typically carries concealed is harmed in a TN location and sues the company for damages incurred due to corporate policy infringing on their legally protected right to carry? 

The cost of your wings just went up by 5 cents to cover the additional insurance they'll need to carry.   Just what this country needs; more insurance and lawyers.

 

[pantherclub]

derps gonna derp

 

[AAABatteries]

I'm assuming the people supporting this legislation are more interested in companies and other locations eliminating their do not carry policy than they are looking for a payday.  And if you are a small business in TN I think you have to at least consider it.

I'm curious how this applies to non-business organizations like churches, non-profits, schools and clubs.

 

[bleachercreacher]

Lots of childish name calling. 

Not lots of discussion. 

Buffalo Wild Wings is a national chain who have a corporate policy of posting no carry zones... Does this law impact thier policy? Or do they accept the liability that if there is an incident and a person who typically carries concealed is harmed in a TN location and sues the company for damages incurred due to corporate policy infringing on their legally protected right to carry? 

There's a lot of states that you wouldn't be allowed to carry in Buffalo Wild Wings anyway.  I'm not sure the law in TN, but I assume it's ok there.

 

[The Commish]

So, I have a question.  Let's say I'm a CC guy at my local BWW and something goes down and I got hurt.  How are they going to go about proving I wouldn't have been hurt if I had my weapon?  I can't sue right now if I am carrying my weapon and get hurt can I?  The whole thing seems illogical from a practical perspective.  

 

[bigbottom]

Lots of childish name calling. 

Not lots of discussion. 

Buffalo Wild Wings is a national chain who have a corporate policy of posting no carry zones... Does this law impact thier policy? Or do they accept the liability that if there is an incident and a person who typically carries concealed is harmed in a TN location and sues the company for damages incurred due to corporate policy infringing on their legally protected right to carry? 

What is the standard for proving liability under the law? Do you simply need to prove that you were injured and have a license to carry?  If so, that seems a ridiculously low burden for proving liability.  Or do you actually have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you would in fact have prevented your injuries had you been armed?  That seems to be a much more reasonable standard of proof, although it would be quite difficult to meet. 

Of course, the standard of proof is irrelevant to the question of whether the law is stupid or not as a general matter. 

 

[bigbottom]

I'm assuming the people supporting this legislation are more interested in companies and other locations eliminating their do not carry policy than they are looking for a payday.  And if you are a small business in TN I think you have to at least consider it.

I'm curious how this applies to non-business organizations like churches, non-profits, schools and clubs.

And courts. And jails. 

 

[The Commish]

Lots of childish name calling. 

Not lots of discussion. 

Buffalo Wild Wings is a national chain who have a corporate policy of posting no carry zones... Does this law impact thier policy? Or do they accept the liability that if there is an incident and a person who typically carries concealed is harmed in a TN location and sues the company for damages incurred due to corporate policy infringing on their legally protected right to carry? 

What is the standard for proving liability under the law? Do you simply need to prove that you were injured and have a license to carry?  If so, that seems a ridiculously low burden for proving liability.  Or do you actually have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you would in fact have prevented your injuries had you been armed?  That seems to be a much more reasonable standard of proof, although it would be quite difficult to meet. 

Of course, the standard of proof is irrelevant to the question of whether the law is stupid or not as a general matter. 

Much more eloquent way of asking my question.  Thanks BB!!   

And  at icon calling other poster posts childish....what goes around comes around I suppose.

 

[bigbottom]

I'm going to propose a law that if I get injured in a shoot out, and someone in the vicinity had a license to carry but wasn't armed at the time, I can sue that person since they chose not to be armed and thus didn't save me from my injuries. I was hurt by your decision!

 

[[icon]]

I'm going to propose a law that if I get injured in a shoot out, and someone in the vicinity had a license to carry but wasn't armed at the time, I can sue that person since they chose not to be armed and thus didn't save me from my injuries. I was hurt by your decision!

Not QUITE the same as corporate policy actively limiting a legally given right, but entertaining premise nonetheless  

Per your earlier question, not sure what the standard of proof is just yet. Haven't read the full text of the law. My guess is if I'm at BWW and get shot, I have met the burden of proof... But that is pure speculation. 

 

[[icon]]

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/SB1736.pdf

looks to be pretty broad in language... By posting the venue effectively assumes custodial care and protection of all guests against actions from patrons, staff, trespassers, and animals (lol)

It covers bodily harm or death, economic loss, or any hardship and the burden of proof is simply that you are authorized to carry, and the venue willfully denied that right by posting. (Does not apply to legally banned places like govt buildings and such) 

they even go so far as to say it's to be liberally interpreted... So this SEEMS to my non-lawyer eyes to be fairly broad with easily met criteria 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/SB1736.pdf

looks to be pretty broad in language... By posting the venue effectively assumes custodial care and protection of all guests against actions from patrons, staff, trespassers, and animals (lol)

It covers bodily harm or death, economic loss, or any hardship and the burden of proof is simply that you are authorized to carry, and the venue willfully denied that right by posting. (Does not apply to legally banned places like govt buildings and such) 

they even go so far as to say it's to be liberally interpreted... So this SEEMS to my non-lawyer eyes to be fairly broad with easily met criteria 

Fascinating.

Lets say I am authorized to carry.  Let's further suppose I am planning on a bit of drinking at a local liquor emporium so I make the responsible decision to neither carry nor drive.  I take public transportation towards my destination.  Public transportation being what it is I am hot, crowded, and a bit assailed in my olfactory senses.  I decide to take a respite and get off a few blocks early.  I walk into an ice cream parlor figuring to enjoy a cool treat as I stroll the last few blocks to my destination.  The parlor is a gun free zone .  Bad things happen.  I suffer bodily harm during the shooting, maybe not from the bullets but from shattering glass.

Now due to my earlier decision I would not have had my weapon with me through my choice not due to their gun free zone designation, but I still get to sue. 

 

[dutch]

Fascinating.

Lets say I am authorized to carry.  Let's further suppose I am planning on a bit of drinking at a local liquor emporium so I make the responsible decision to neither carry nor drive.  I take public transportation towards my destination.  Public transportation being what it is I am hot, crowded, and a bit assailed in my olfactory senses.  I decide to take a respite and get off a few blocks early.  I walk into an ice cream parlor figuring to enjoy a cool treat as I stroll the last few blocks to my destination.  The parlor is a gun free zone .  Bad things happen.  I suffer bodily harm during the shooting, maybe not from the bullets but from shattering glass.

Now due to my earlier decision I would not have had my weapon with me through my choice not due to their gun free zone designation, but I still get to sue. 

Who doesn't like free money?

 

[bigbottom]

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/SB1736.pdf

looks to be pretty broad in language... By posting the venue effectively assumes custodial care and protection of all guests against actions from patrons, staff, trespassers, and animals (lol)

It covers bodily harm or death, economic loss, or any hardship and the burden of proof is simply that you are authorized to carry, and the venue willfully denied that right by posting. (Does not apply to legally banned places like govt buildings and such) 

they even go so far as to say it's to be liberally interpreted... So this SEEMS to my non-lawyer eyes to be fairly broad with easily met criteria 

In that case, it seems to be that the law is both stupid generally and as to the standard of proof to be applied.

 

[dparker713]

I'm assuming the people supporting this legislation are more interested in companies and other locations eliminating their do not carry policy than they are looking for a payday.  And if you are a small business in TN I think you have to at least consider it.

I'm curious how this applies to non-business organizations like churches, non-profits, schools and clubs.

School gun free zones are mandated by federal law and federal courts and other such buildings are federal land and would be immune to the law.  Of course, that's not going to stop people from trying to sue if a shooting occurs at those locations - clogging up the courts.