Gun Free Zone Liability

[golddigger14s]

From WAGUNS.ORG:
"
What an awesome idea........ Minnesota: New Bill Would Allow Legally Armed Citizens To Sue Gun Free Zone Businesses If Injured While Disarmed

I can wrap my head around this..............

a portion of the article: Concealed Nation reports:

This new bill would change those requirements by adding something new. All notifications now must state that anyone prohibited from carrying a firearm is “under the custodial responsibility” of the business that is banning guns on their premises.

Details of the new bill state that a business or property owners which prohibits the carrying of firearms “shall assume absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of the unarmed person” while the person is on the property.

Link: https://thewashingtonstandard.com/minne ... -disarmed/


Now.......... How quickly would Gun Free Zones disappear?"

 

[rc508pir]

Its Minnesota though, I doubt it has any chance of getting passed

 

[donner]

gotta love the support the rights of private businesses.

whatever happened to 'you don't want to disarm, don't shop there'?

 

[CGS1]

Minnesota, muslim, democrat state. Nope thats not going anywhere

 

[corneileous]

gotta love the support the rights of private businesses.

whatever happened to 'you don't want to disarm, don't shop there'?

Two things- concealed means concealed, and what are you proving by inconveniencing yourself by not shopping there?? I mean sure, if the 7-11 on one side of the street has a no guns sign, and the Valero on the other side doesn’t, it’s pretty easy to go in the store that supports your right to carry but what if there is no feasible alternative? What, you just gonna do without just because you think you’re proving a point? If that store gave a crap one about your beliefs, they wouldn’t be restricting you in the first place.

But just so you know, I don’t consider it supporting, or unsupporting anyone, I just shop wherever I shop. Them... has nothing to do with it. They have something I need and I’m not gonna just drive to the other end of town just to go in a place that has no sign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[donner]

Two things- concealed means concealed, and what are you proving by inconveniencing yourself by not shopping there?? I mean sure, if the 7-11 on one side of the street has a no guns sign, and the Valero on the other side doesn’t, it’s pretty easy to go in the store that supports your right to carry but what if there is no feasible alternative? What, you just gonna do without just because you think you’re proving a point? If that store gave a crap one about your beliefs, they wouldn’t be restricting you in the first place.

But just so you know, I don’t consider it supporting, or [unsupporting[/i] anyone, I just shop wherever I shop. Them... has nothing to do with it. They have something I need and I’m not gonna just drive to the other end of town just to go in a place that has no sign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you'd rather use the force of government to threaten the business into complying with your view, rather than allowing it the freedom to set its own terms? Even if, say, the ban was religious based?

 

[corneileous]

So you'd rather use the force of government to threaten the business into complying with your view, rather than allowing it the freedom to set its own terms? Even if, say, the ban was religious based?

So uh, how did we go from advising everyone to shop elsewhere by thinking that not patronizing a business who does something foolish like this, to all the sudden accusing them of being ok with using government force to make them comply to our views- and even have the audacity to use religion as an example??

This isn’t about religion. It’s about the unsafe situations these signs create.

But I get it, it’s hard to impose this on someone because yes, it’s not like we’re being forced to shop there. I don’t breathe too much into it anyways because like I said, concealed MEANS concealed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Folks, just look at all the bills our own reps and senators introduce at the start of each session. Don't get excited over any idea, pro or con, at this level.

 

[donner]

So uh, how did we go from advising everyone to shop elsewhere by thinking that not patronizing a business who does something foolish like this, to all the sudden accusing them of being ok with using government force to make them comply to our views- and even have the audacity to use religion as an example??

This isn’t about religion. It’s about the unsafe situations these signs create.

But I get it, it’s hard to impose this on someone because yes, it’s not like we’re being forced to shop there. I don’t breathe too much into it anyways because like I said, concealed MEANS concealed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

let's see, create a bill that allows lawsuits if a place chooses to exercise a right that has previous existed. Yeah, comply and allow firearms or have an increased risk of getting sued.

And we have businesses claiming religious grounds already, why would it be hard to believe that there are ones out there that would want to prohibit firearms because of their faith? Pharmacists don't want to give out Plan B, catholic schools don't want to cover birth control, etc.

If these signs create unsafe situations then the simpler solution is to go somewhere else. Changing the law so that they can more easily be sued doesn't change the situation these signs create by itself. They are clearly meant to pressure the business into changing its stance. It's legislative virtue signaling.

 

[corneileous]

let's see, create a bill that allows lawsuits if a place chooses to exercise a right that has previous existed. Yeah, comply and allow firearms or have an increased risk of getting sued.

And we have businesses claiming religious grounds already, why would it be hard to believe that there are ones out there that would want to prohibit firearms because of their faith? Pharmacists don't want to give out Plan B, catholic schools don't want to cover birth control, etc.

If these signs create unsafe situations then the simpler solution is to go somewhere else. Changing the law so that they can more easily be sued doesn't change the situation these signs create by itself. They are clearly meant to pressure the business into changing its stance. It's legislative virtue signaling.

I get where you’re coming from, I really do but I guess it’s just all the premise of said business creating an unsafe environment. Sure, we don’t have to go in there but still, if these places want to ban guns, then at least put up metal detectors or armed security to make sure sign doesn’t go ignored. At least if anything, hopefully it would keep these ignorant gun grabber/haters from having more and more reason to conjure up more silly gun laws from every other recorded time some thug, bad guy ignores that sign and shoots up a nightclub- holds up a convenience/liquor store or anything else for that matter where the owner has barred ALL guns from his/her establishment.

But hey, as I said- even though open carry does have its share of advantages, conceal that pistol and don’t worry about it. Or inconvenience yourself and shop elsewhere.

But lemmie ask ya this- and yes I know, they give in here, and they’ll be expected to give in to something else- I get it but, what if some gun-hatin’ liberal decides to sue some store owner for not enforcing his own sign when it gets walked right passed by a bad guy? Then what? I wish there was a way to only focus on the real reason why anyone would put that sign up in the first place, which is because they hate guns, they hate the sight of guns and they think of you and me as the potential bad guy which is just so how the typical gun hating patron feels as well, rather than anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk