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.
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.
On what grounds would it be opposed? The legislature makes the law. Is there a constitutional violation? If so, what?
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.
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.
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.
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%.
