Tennessee has right idea

[SR9]

Tennessee has right ideal"

'Gun-Free Zones' in Tennessee now liable for harm caused to firearm permit holders

 

[bofh]

Please read the UPDATE on Bearing Arms | UPDATED: Want a Gun-Free Zone? Tennessee Says That’s on You: LITERALLY. As noted in this UPDATE, TN SB1736/HB2033 states:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by

adding the following as a new section:

(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to § 39-17-1359.

(b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2016, the public welfare requiring it.

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.

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.

So, instead of making posted zones liable, it makes non-posted zones not liable. Big difference.

 

[SR9]

Weak, very weak.

 

[Rhino]

Should have been that way already.

 

[bofh]

Should have been that way already.

As far as I know, there is no such explicit law in any other state.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You really need to read the law carefully. This is what the law is saying:

I enter a store that is NOT posted. I get shot in the store. I cannot sue the store for failure to prohibit firearms by posting the sign.

 

[bofh]

You really need to read the law carefully. This is what the law is saying:

I enter a store that is NOT posted. I get shot in the store. I cannot sue the store for failure to prohibit firearms by posting the sign.

Exactly, that's why I am saying that there is a big difference between the original intent of the law and its final passed version. I believe the idea of the final law was to take away the argument made by insurance companies that simply prohibiting firearms by posting the sign will lower the owners liability.

 

[Rhino]

As far as I know, there is no such explicit law in any other state.

Ohio Revised Code, Section 2923.126. You can click the link in my signature if you're interested in reading it.

 

[bofh]

Ohio Revised Code, Section 2923.126. You can click the link in my signature if you're interested in reading it.

2923.126 (C) (2). Interesting. Thanks for posting.