Tennessee SB1736 - Right to sue

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Schweisshund, Jun 29, 2016.

  1. Dawgdoc

    Dawgdoc Well-Known Member

    1,509
    70
    48
    I think the article left out the amendment which essentially rewrote the bill.

    Basically, it seems to say businesses are not liable if they don't post; the article makes it seem a business would be liable if they do post. The effect of the amendment would be to encourage businesses not to post since they won't be held liable.
     

  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
  3. DotNetDog

    DotNetDog Member

    134
    1
    18
    I just saw this today. Interesting bill in Tennessee that goes into effect today.

    "Can you imagine? Holding gun-free zone property accountable for injuries people sustained by being disarmed and left defenseless? Groundbreaking."

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

    Drew Active Member

    1,883
    0
    36
    Unfortunately it doesn't apply to off-limits locations. If you can sue a business, then you should be able to sue the government as well.
     
  5. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
    I am torn about this and I am not sure it will survive a court challenge since it tramples on a property owner's rights. As far as I am concerned, if you are armed and you chose to go into a "gun free" business, well, that is on you. You have accepted the implied risk of not being armed. To play devil's advocate, let's say you are a business owner who doesn't put up a sign. You are robbed and a good Samaritan chooses to shoot @ the perp and instead of hitting him, he shoots a small child and kills him/her and it turns out that the perp isn't armed at all. Odds are the business owner will be tacked onto any lawsuits (I am not saying whether the business owner will actually be held responsible or not) and thus will incur significant legal fees. I just am not a fan of this new law.
     
  6. herron

    herron Member

    141
    0
    16
    I am a big fan of this bill it is a business and if they decide to disarm you and you get hurt on their property then they are liable. Some say just go elsewhere but if all businesses decides to do this then where will you go to shop, eat and etc you would just stay home and starve. Hold businesses acountible for what happens on their property.
     
  7. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
    1st point: All businesses? Really? That's not going to happen. What is happening to personal responsibility? If a business doesn't allow you to carry a gun then YOU need to make the decision if it's worth the risk.

    2nd Point: A lot of folks here want to have their cake and eat it too. In one breath, folks will DEMAND that businesses allow guns (OR ELSE!!!) but then would allow the same business to discriminate because they are gay or are Muslims. It's ridiculous.

    Property rights are going down the tubes the same as the rights against illegal search and seizure.

    And the BIGGEST issue here...it doesn't apply to the government. Big surprise there, eh?
     
  8. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Will it stand up?
     
  9. herron

    herron Member

    141
    0
    16
    Agree with your opinion that you should sue the gov. for the same thing but I still agree that they take responsibility for your safety if they decide to disarm you.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    On what grounds would it be opposed? The legislature makes the law. Is there a constitutional violation? If so, what?
     
  11. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Not sure. It sounds like a good idea, but I don't know enough about liability law to know if this could be challenged, or on what grounds.
     
  12. Clark

    Clark Well-Known Member

    1,001
    83
    48
    Wrong, it most certainly could happen. You seem to think that just because you have access to dozens of different stores that everyone else does. I can easily see the one or two critical supply stores (grocery, pharmacy, etc.) in a smaller town banning guns basically leaving residents out of luck.
     
  13. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
    I tend to think that these smaller towns *in Tennessee* are more apt to be gun friendly as opposed to anti-2A. So...I still don't see it happening. And please don't think I made *any* assumption about how many stores are available to someone, because I didn't.

    Anyway, I have voiced my opinion and am not going to sit around and argue with folks about it. It's 5 o'clock and I haven't poured my first beer of the weekend yet and that is a travesty.
     
  14. Dawgdoc

    Dawgdoc Well-Known Member

    1,509
    70
    48
    The websites are regurgitating each other's information and missing the fact that the bill as passed is totally different than the one originally proposed. So no, it doesn't provide some special situation in which a legal gun toter gets to sue a business that prohibits guns. That was the original intent. The amended bill does the opposite--if a business allows guns, then they cannot be held liable if a gun toter hurts someone in the business.

    In other words, if you negligently discharge your gun and hurt a person in a business that does not prohibit weapons, the injured person cannot sue the business for failure to prohibit guns.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2016
  15. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
    Thank you for clarifying that...I appreciate it. I guess that's what I get for listening to the media (and talk radio nowadays) and not doing my own research. The law that actually passed, well, I support that 100%.
     
  16. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    503
    113
    [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbPfwy9ZRI[/ame]
     
  17. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    503
    113
    Absolutely we need this law in GA.