New TN law re: concealed carry

Mr.Badguy

Mr.Badguy

Super lefty
So I live in Tennessee, and we got a bunch of new laws on the books today (we can buy wine in grocery stores now, woohoo!), and one of them seemed a little strange to me. I thought maybe it could lead to some interesting discussion.

Basically the jist of it is: if you have a concealed carry permit, and you enter a "no firearms" business without your gun, and you get shot, that business is then liable.

I myself think it's a silly law and a little hypocritical to the whole personal responsibility mantra of conservatives. Just seems like posturing to me.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
So I live in Tennessee, and we got a bunch of new laws on the books today (we can buy wine in grocery stores now, woohoo!), and one of them seemed a little strange to me. I thought maybe it could lead to some interesting discussion.

Basically the jist of it is: if you have a concealed carry permit, and you enter a "no firearms" business without your gun, and you get shot, that business is then liable.

I myself think it's a silly law and a little hypocritical to the whole personal responsibility mantra of conservatives. Just seems like posturing to me.
Click to expand...

If the law is ever tested, there is no way it will ever hold up.
You seem like a reasonable fellow. I pity you living in such a backward state.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
So I live in Tennessee, and we got a bunch of new laws on the books today (we can buy wine in grocery stores now, woohoo!), and one of them seemed a little strange to me. I thought maybe it could lead to some interesting discussion.

Basically the jist of it is: if you have a concealed carry permit, and you enter a "no firearms" business without your gun, and you get shot, that business is then liable.

I myself think it's a silly law and a little hypocritical to the whole personal responsibility mantra of conservatives. Just seems like posturing to me.
Click to expand...

Stupid law that makes a mockery of gun rights
 
It doesn't stand up to due process. Only people with concealed carry permits are protected under it, thus depriving people without them of basic rights and reducing them to second class citizenship. It's unconstitutional per the 14th amendment.
 
Here's an article with a more clear description.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...y-permit-holders-now-liable-for-their-safety/

It's just so bizarre of a thought process to me, that went into writing this bill. So if a guy comes into a place, shoots it up and kills a CCW person, the family basically gets to say "the only reason he/she died is because they didn't have their gun" and sue. When any sane person would know that the person died BECAUSE SOMEONE SHOT UP THE PLACE.

It's like one of those underhanded "Christan persecution" laws, but for guns.
 
An armed society is a polite society.

Guns save lives.

Gun-free zones are killing zones.


11df6823e5f1e773e7f621c657644ba4.jpg
 
The premise for the law isn't that far-fetched.

Police are not duty bound to provide protection to any person even if they know the person is under threat. The only situation that police can be held liable for someone's safety is when police action has eliminated the person's ability to act in their own defense (e.g., under arrest or other custodial circumstance).

That the action of the business in forcing CCW customers to be defenseless, places an assumption of responsibility on the business to keep all customers safe, isn't an unreasonable argument.

I don't necessarily agree with the law -- I would fall on the side of respecting the private property rights of the business owner according to his personal beliefs -- but given the situations with business owners having their personal beliefs steamrolled to accommodate certain customer's lifestyle choices, why shouldn't business owners be held responsible if their policy of forced disarmament results in harm or death?

Certainly the stakes are much higher than getting a cake baked with two groom statues on top of it.
 
You know what I think is funny about concealed carry is that even though the NRA supports it, it's really a form of gun control as you have to have specific training and obtain a permit, which I certainly agree with, to carry a concealed weapon.

Evidence that common sense gun laws do work. LOL

So much for slippery slope arguments.
 
Abatis said:
The premise for the law isn't that far-fetched.

Police are not duty bound to provide protection to any person even if they know the person is under threat. The only situation that police can be held liable for someone's safety is when police action has eliminated the person's ability to act in their own defense (e.g., under arrest or other custodial circumstance).

That the action of the business in forcing CCW customers to be defenseless, places an assumption of responsibility on the business to keep all customers safe, isn't an unreasonable argument.

I don't necessarily agree with the law -- I would fall on the side of respecting the private property rights of the business owner according to his personal beliefs -- but given the situations with business owners having their personal beliefs steamrolled to accommodate certain customer's lifestyle choices, why shouldn't business owners be held responsible if their policy of forced disarmament results in harm or death?

Certainly the stakes are much higher than getting a cake baked with two groom statues on top of it.
Click to expand...
Oh so many logical fallacies in this argument that it's hard to no where to begin a rebuttal.

How about, no one is forcing anyone to go into a business that doesn't permit carrying a firearm. You are free to not enter or do business with them.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So much for slippery slope arguments.
Click to expand...

Actually it proves the "slippery slope" theory -- just in the opposite of how it is usually described.

And the progression to expanding gun rights continues with states removing the permit requirement -- so your premise is failing.

Rtc.gif
 
Abatis said:
Actually it proves the "slippery slope" theory -- just in the opposite of how it is usually described.

And the progression to expanding gun rights continues with states removing the permit requirement -- so your premise is failing.

Rtc.gif
Click to expand...

America should be the safest place on earth by now.
 
Its a logical and reasoned law.....ratified by the people of TN. In a representative republic....all law reflects the morality or lack thereof of the MAJORITY of its society. TN has the STATES RIGHT (see article 10 of the Bill of Rights) to draft any law that its people sees fit that does not conflict with the standard of jurisprudence in this REPUBLIC...the Constitution and following amendments thereof of The United States Constitution.

The right to carry....is but a reflection of the 2nd amendment. Every citizen in the United States has the right to arm themselves in order to protect life and property. The citizens of TN have regulated that right slightly....requiring a permit or license to carry in public, there is due process for such a permit. No convicted felon can obtain that permit to carry or conceal a weapon LEGALLY...thus, law abiding citizens as observed by their history are the only individuals that can legally carry a concealed weapon. Basic Logic.

Next you have the owner of a piece of property that freely and with premeditation decides to open a business to serve THE PUBLIC et. al...means the entirety....regardless of background or criminal record. If not...the LIBERALS would be the first to jump up screaming.....DISCRIMINATION...these people have paid their debt to society.

Thus...the law abiding citizen decides to engage in business with this owner....to become a patron of that PUBLIC FACILITY. Of course the owner has the right to refuse service to anyone in a free republic society. He lets his will be known....no firearms allowed. The law abiding citizen obey's the common law of the land and leaves his personal protection on the other side of the door.

Now whose responsibility IS IT....if that proprietor allows a convicted felon into his established with a concealed weapon of any kind...regardless of his pre-knowledge? Of course that proprietor is just as liable for any injury to that law abiding citizen as he would be if that patron slipped and fell due to some safety hazard found to exist.

Logic and Reason....nor Common Sense are not so common on the left side of the political arena...it appears.

This is an opinion based upon LOGIC and REASON....nothing else. Now if anyone...even a former law abiding citizen broke the law and refused to acknowledge the owners right to run his establish any way he wished and unlawfully carried a concealed weapon into that establishment and Harmed another individual void of just cause...like self defense etc., that Citizen would be liable for any harm. But....logically and reasoned....if its a criminal coming in that HAS NO RIGHT NOR AUTHORITY to carry a lethal weapon of any kind enters that establishment carrying.....its the owner's bed to sleep in as he has the right to refuse service to anyone and political correctness is no excuse.


There is a rule of logic that implies that you can't have your cake and eat it also. It implies nothing can hold the position of being considered true and false at the same instance. Its true the owner is liable or its false...the citizen is liable because one of the rules established by the owner caused harm to a patron. In this case..its true if the proverbial hypothetical situation (a favorite of liberals everywhere...the catch all hypothetical that has yet to happen or perhaps never happen)...finds any patron getting harmed by any criminal action of any other patron...when the law abiding citizen HAD the right to protect himself before the owner removed that right due to a private optional personal LAW.

This logical argument is based upon the presumption that no STATE LAW exists that forbids concealed carry in certain establishments and public places....such as bars or courtrooms etc., If there is no pre-existing public common law existing denying the right to carry in this particular (hypothetical location)...then most certainly the owner is liable for nothing else other than his decision making skills. IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Now if anyone...even a former law abiding citizen broke the law and refused to acknowledge the owners right to run his establish any way he wished and unlawfully carried a concealed weapon into that established and Harmed another individual void of just cause...like self defense etc., that Citizen would be liable for any harm.
Click to expand...

Think so?
 
Legion Troll said:
Think so?
Click to expand...

Having READERS BLOCK again? Asked and Answered in a most unambiguous manner.

Have I not demonstrated you to be confirmed liar...previously? Such as when you suggested that no founding father quoted anything concerning guns and plow sheers and you quoted me as saying that phrase came from the bible rather than T. Jefferson? Just an observation. Either you are the most illiterate individual on this site...or as I suspect you are simply a pathological serial liar....that will act anyway seeking ATTENTION making you well embedded on the left side of the political isle:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top