Blueshell
Banned
True, or he had one of the ways to waiv the class entierly, like a DD214.
Anyway just thought I'd leave this here:
Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?
- Thread starter HappeScrapn
- Start date
- Status
Anyway just thought I'd leave this here:
PhillySoldier
New member
Personally I agree that one in general should follow the businesses rules and help fight against its policies if they feel it is wrong. With that said though (and I know this is a complete contradiction) in the current state of this country I think it foolish to go into such areas unprotected but do so knowing you may face the consequences for your actions.
Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1736 states that if any handgun permit holder is wounded, killed, or incurs financial loss, expense, property or any other kind of compensable loss on a site posted to restrict firearms, the person can sue the individual or entity that created the gun free zone.
My own belief is similar to Tennessee's bill above in that if a business restricts your rights to protection then they must be responsible for it. Win or lose if victims and/or there family start suing these businesses for there negligent protection I think this would affect change.
Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1736 states that if any handgun permit holder is wounded, killed, or incurs financial loss, expense, property or any other kind of compensable loss on a site posted to restrict firearms, the person can sue the individual or entity that created the gun free zone.
My own belief is similar to Tennessee's bill above in that if a business restricts your rights to protection then they must be responsible for it. Win or lose if victims and/or there family start suing these businesses for there negligent protection I think this would affect change.
bofh
Banned
Read and understand a law before posting about it
Wrong!!! How many times do I have to correct this? This is becoming an urban myth. Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1736 as enacted states no such thing:
The original intent of the law was to make any person who posts their property as a gun-free zone liable 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. However, like with so many other bills in the TN legislature, it was changed at the last minute.
The enacted law provides immunity from civil liability to a person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by positing, with respect to any claim based on the person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt such a policy. Big difference!
Unfortunately, news outlets and gun blogs, such as Breitbart and Bearing Arms, used the text of the original bill when reporting on its passage and not the text of the actual passed bill. These articles had to be corrected, but unfortunately only after many already read the original article and got the completely wrong message.
Always verify what you are reading on the Internet, especially when it comes to the law and would directly impact you.
Wrong!!! How many times do I have to correct this? This is becoming an urban myth. Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1736 as enacted states no such thing:
The original intent of the law was to make any person who posts their property as a gun-free zone liable 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. However, like with so many other bills in the TN legislature, it was changed at the last minute.
The enacted law provides immunity from civil liability to a person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by positing, with respect to any claim based on the person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt such a policy. Big difference!
Unfortunately, news outlets and gun blogs, such as Breitbart and Bearing Arms, used the text of the original bill when reporting on its passage and not the text of the actual passed bill. These articles had to be corrected, but unfortunately only after many already read the original article and got the completely wrong message.
Always verify what you are reading on the Internet, especially when it comes to the law and would directly impact you.
Blueshell
Banned
Financial adviser Dave Ramsey uses a technique on his radio show which I think can apply here. The technique is to reverce the situation. For example, if a person wanted to delay paying a car off so that they would have extra money in the bank, Dave would ask them 'If the car were paid off right now, would you give the title to a bank for a loan just so you could have extra money in your bank account?'
So as it pertains to businesses, would any parent be willing to let their child be killed in a gun free zone if it meant the parent would be paid a settlment by the property owner?
I say no.
Let the buisnesses post their silly signs. I'll do what I need to do.
Blueshell
Banned
Nobody cares.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Link Removed.....
....And I care.
You really should learn to speak only for yourself and leave the rest of us out of your delusions.
Blues
Blueshell
Banned
Nobody cares.
bofh
Banned
How do you know? Have you asked everyone? I don't care that you don't. How about posting something productive? Oh, right, I now remember what your contribution to this forum is. Agitation and false information.
Blueshell
Banned
See? Nobody cares.
bofh
Banned
Thank you for so quickly proving the point I made in the very post you quoted. No contribution whatsoever.
You are one of the reasons why this forum sucks by the way. I am still waiting on your answer to my question in the other thread pointing out where I was wrong:
Blueshell
Banned
Go check out post 684 and then explain why you want this tangent.
Even if the law were offering liability grounds for a lawsuit, it doesn't matter, no one cares.
I was the bigger person and walked away from that other thread. There's more than one postal service in this country, you're just going to have to come to terms with that on your own. It's petty of you to try and bring your tangents from other threads into this one.
You're what's wrong with this forum.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
I care too bofh.
Once again, stringer and bofh are right on all accounts, shells wrong.
You know he won't answer you bofh, he cried about me saying he was wrong too. I'd say leave him to his own miserable life.
Sent from my SM-G935V using USA Carry mobile app
bofh
Banned
My post in this thread was simply correcting another post in terms of what the law is. That's all. I wasn't arguing about if this law makes any sense whatsoever. You seem to believe so, however.
As for the other thread, you are still wrong and I am still right. You have not made any argument why I was wrong. I have posted the details about the complexities of shipping a handgun to yourself across states with a commercial carrier, which is not easier than flying with it or mailing a Christmas present. None of these activities involve an FFL. Also, there is only one postal service. The person who couldn't explain his post ran away from that thread.
As I said, you are one of the reasons why this forum sucks.
Blueshell
Banned
Fact is you can just mail a firearm. No amount of pouting from you is ever going to change that.
Blueshell
Banned
bofh
Banned
I understand that you don't care and don't know what the law is. As I said, your posts are no actual contribution, just hit and runs.
Blueshell
Banned
Nobody cares.
Blueshell
Banned
Every single mass shooting in the US exept 2, from 1950 to present, occured in a gun-free zone. How many more people need to die at the feet of "property rights" before we put an end to the public hazard?
Do I carry past signs? Damn right I do, that's where I'm most likely to need it.
Do I carry past signs? Damn right I do, that's where I'm most likely to need it.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
You're as bad as Billary when it comes to dancing around a topic and saying anything useful. You're greatest achievement in this forum is, where others haven't, you can say you did, and you are proud of that.
Sent from my SM-G935V using USA Carry mobile app
B
Bikenut
Guest
First rule to winning a gun fight is to not be there when the gun fight starts so why would anyone intentionally go where they are most likely to need their gun? Are you required by law to go there or do you disrespect private property rights of other folks because going somewhere else is just inconvenient for you?
An opinion not directed at any specific individual(s)......
I tend to believe some folks who sanctimoniously brag about disrespecting private property rights by... sneaking.... their guns into private property businesses with no guns rules secretly hope to have the opportunity to heroically whip out their super secret Ninja element of surprise and save the day from an active shooter to the applause and accolades of those now grateful poor unfortunates the dastardly business owner demanded be unarmed.
- Status
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.