Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Sign up

Tennessee Gun Rights

The more I think about it, the I think it's like this: IF I choose to walk into a gun free zone and get shot, then shame on me for patronizing a business that protects the criminal underclass. It's not their fault, it's MINE for giving up my rights by allowing them to keep theirs. Their rights, my rights. One has to give, or they both have to part ways (or you can just conceal really deep and carry in them anyway LOL)

What really ticks me off, though, is not being able to carry into a post office or other government building. It's those places, IMO, where our 2A rights should be considered most sacred.

As a side note, as far as cakes go, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake for someone because it violates their conscience, then they shouldn't be forced to. Let's take gays out of the equation for a minute and say it's a Muslim baker who is asked to make a 'Hail Satan' cake with a pentagram on it. Satanism is legal, so should the Muslim be sued out of business for religious discrimination for not making them a cake?
 
Last edited:
Mike said:
Exactly! But, people are getting ruined for denying services. This is where my stance on this issue comes from. I know there is a bit of difference between denying services and gun free zones at a business, but one should be able to run their business how they want and the consequences, whether positive or negative, will follow.
Click to expand...

Per your stance under this law they can run the business how they want and the consequence positive or negative will follow.

Do as you wish and put up a no carry sign, the consequence is you're now responsible if something happens and a CCW holder is harmed because you disarmed him.

In today's times we cannot continue to have businesses create gun free target rich environments and then claim innocence when a mass shooting or something else happens. A business needs to allow people to protect themselves as the state has authorized them too do, or accept responsibility for something happening to them because the business disarmed them.

No rights are being taken away from the business. They are still allowed to post sign and operate how they want. The law is simply establishing a liability for that decision. It's still up to the business if they choose to do it or not.
 
Jackalope said:
Per your stance under this law they can run the business how they want and the consequence positive or negative will follow.

Do as you wish and put up a no carry sign, the consequence is you're now responsible if something happens and a CCW holder is harmed because you disarmed him.

In today's times we cannot continue to have businesses create gun free target rich environments and then claim innocence when a mass shooting or something else happens. A business needs to allow people to protect themselves as the state has authorized them too do, or accept responsibility for something happening to them because the business disarmed them.

No rights are being taken away from the business. They are still allowed to post sign and operate how they want. The law is simply establishing a liability for that decision. It's still up to the business if they choose to do it or not.
Click to expand...

Dang, Joe. You should have been a lawyer.

Wait... Are you? lol
 
I am for a business owner to have the ability to do what they see fit. That doesn't protect them from the liability they are responsible for when that decision bites them later.

Don't wanna bake cupcakes for the gays, sweet. No gays or their supporters buy your stuff, sweet.

You limit what a person can do to protect themselves, sweet. They get gunned down due, in part, because of your decision....They are in part responsible and liable.
 
Beentown said:
I am for a business owner to have the ability to do what they see fit. That doesn't protect them from the liability they are responsible for when that decision bites them later.

Don't wanna bake cupcakes for the gays, sweet. No gays or their supporters buy your stuff, sweet.

You limit what a person can do to protect themselves, sweet. They get gunned down due, in part, because of your decision....They are in part responsible and liable.
Click to expand...

The difference in your two scenarios is one you let the free market decide; the other uses government agents to punish them. I say let the free market decide.
 
Wmiller07 said:
The difference in your two scenarios is one you let the free market decide; the other uses government agents to punish them. I say let the free market decide.
Click to expand...


Wasn't using it as a compare/contrast. Just added to the arguement for each scenario.

I have more but no time to type it.
 
Wmiller07 said:
The difference in your two scenarios is one you let the free market decide; the other uses government agents to punish them. I say let the free market decide.
Click to expand...

It's not a punishment it's a liability. The government simply stated that if you remove a CCW holders ability to protect themselves and create a prime environment for violence then the store can be sued if something happens to that CCW holder. It doesn't say that it's an actual fine or establish a real penalty. It simply says that they're allowed to sue the business. The exact liability will be found through the court under trial.

What this law does is removes a lawyers ability to get the case thrown out under the excuse that it's not their job to protect their customers. AMC theaters argued that in court and won. Well if your customers safety isn't your responsibility then your basically saying it's their own responsibility. But as a business you removed their ability. This establishes that a business can't have it's cake and eat it too. You can't claim a persons safety is not your responsibility while also making it your responsibility to disarm them.
 
Looks like the TN bill got modified before it passed, so it actually didn't make the businesses that post liable:

The law [originally] aimed to enact a “duty of care” on any person who posts their property as a gun-free zone, making them responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises as well as while during their travel to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder’s firearm is stored.
....
the amended legislation still goes into law today and instead of doing what the original bill intended (because that would just be way too frappin easy), they flipped it on it’s head by encouraging businesses to welcome concealed carriers by shielding them from liability.
....
So instead of defending everyone’s right to carry as originally proposed, the law protects businesses who have the option to post gun-free signs but choose not by making them immune from civil liability.

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/28/want-a-gun-free-zone-tennessee-says-thats-on-you-literally/
Click to expand...
 
Jackalope said:
It's not a punishment it's a liability. The government simply stated that if you remove a CCW holders ability to protect themselves and create a prime environment for violence then the store can be sued if something happens to that CCW holder. It doesn't say that it's an actual fine or establish a real penalty. It simply says that they're allowed to sue the business. The exact liability will be found through the court under trial.

What this law does is removes a lawyers ability to get the case thrown out under the excuse that it's not their job to protect their customers. AMC theaters argued that in court and won. Well if your customers safety isn't your responsibility then your basically saying it's their own responsibility. But as a business you removed their ability. This establishes that a business can't have it's cake and eat it too. You can't claim a persons safety is not your responsibility while also making it your responsibility to disarm them.
Click to expand...

Dang it you may have just convinced me. I never looked at it from the angle of the business saying your safety isn't their responsibility but taking away your right to provide your own safety. You're a real jerk you know that? I hate it when someone makes me change my mind.
 
That's what it's all about man. Everybody thinking. I know I've thought things on here and people made me look at it differently many times.
 
Jackalope said:
It's not a punishment it's a liability. The government simply stated that if you remove a CCW holders ability to protect themselves and create a prime environment for violence then the store can be sued if something happens to that CCW holder. It doesn't say that it's an actual fine or establish a real penalty. It simply says that they're allowed to sue the business. The exact liability will be found through the court under trial.
Click to expand...

There it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.