No and they don’t have liability when you run over someone in their parking lot either.
You’re going to have to help me out with this one a little bit, Hail Ants. You appear to be arguing that, if I walk into a coffee shop carrying a gun, the proprietor can’t throw me out because Second Amendment. Okay. But by that same logic, if I walk into a coffee shop, and start chanting Black Lives Matter slogans, the proprietor also cannot throw me out, because First Amendment.
Is that your position? That a shop owner is legally prohibited from expelling people from their stores because of what they say? If it’s not, why would it be different for guns than it is for speech?
If a store doesn’t have liability if I go all Suge Knight and kill someone with my car in their parking lot, why should it have liability if I use a shotgun instead of a sedan?
I suspect you would be someone who thinks they believe in freedom and personal responsibility, am I right?
Yet if you believe (as you clearly do) that someone’s safety is decreased by them not having their gun on them at all times, then by voluntarily entering premises where they are not allowed to have their gun on them, they are quite clearly taking that risk on with full knowledge of what they are doing. So why should the business owner be liable if the customer takes that risk?
The law limits the freedom of the property owner to only permit people into his private premises who accept a certain, well announced and understood risk. The law forces the premises owner to bear the consequences of their customers’ decision. And the customers are negating their personal responsibility for their own decision to enter his premises knowing full well the risk.
It’s interesting that the “journalist” who wrote the article in the OP has written extensively on bakeries that refuse to serve same-sex weddings.
The author appears to think that “discriminating” against people with guns is far, far worse than discriminating against homosexuals.
Shocking. I’m floored.
As noted above - carrying a gun (or a rose) is a voluntary action. Being homosexual or black or Jewish is not. Hence the difference. You can leave your gun (or rose) in your car and enter the shop. You can not leave your sexual orientation or skin color or religion there.
But the argument is that shopkeepers, by banning guns, are making the place less safe. If you do something deliberately to make your premises less safe, then you should be liable. At that point, the argument is merely whether banning guns does in fact decrease safety, or the opposite. If it turns out that inviting guns on the premises, or inviting SOME PARTICULAR guns on the premises, makes it less safe, then why shouldn’t the shopkeeper be liable? (Remember, there are more accidental gunshot deaths in the U.S. each year, and far more murders, than justifiable homicides by civilians. )
Sigh. Refutation of this has been posted many, many times on this board. Holders of concealed carry licenses (legal gun carriers) commit far [URL=“http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#politics”]fewer crimes, violent or otherwise, than the population at large.
If, instead, you meant that people who do already illegal things (carry without a permit) are more prone to violence - that’s probably true. Has no bearing on this conversation, but probably true.
ETA - that said, the TN law is stupid. A property owner should absolutely be allowed to bar weapons from their property. The Bill of Rights does not apply to interactions between private citizens on private property, except in the case of protected classes.
It presents the opportunity for a court to weigh in on the “I would have been Rambo if I was there” stories people trot out whenever a mass shooting happens.
Plaintiff: “If I’d just had my gun I would have totally taken out those six guys with three shots, then said something cool while their car blew up in a massive fireball”.
Jury: “This court finds that plaintiff would have cowered in the corner and pissed himself, gun or no”.
(bolding mine)
Religion can’t be changed? :dubious:
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You seem to be saying, like RealityChuck, that religion is not a choice that people make.
I believe this was settled in the landmark case of McLaine v. Nakatomi Corporation (1988).
Really? Did you have to go to boot camp to learn you don’t like having people shooting at you?
Somehow I’ve managed to get by for over 40 years without needing to carry a firearm.
Well, statistically speaking that isn’t so. Everything I’ve read suggests the opposite. That more guns just leads to more accidents and that there are relatively few cases where a civilian was able to use a firearm to stop a criminal act.
In fact, having a bunch of armed civilians did nothing to prevent the recent Dallas shooting rampage against armed and trained cops. In fact, having a bunch of civilians walking around with weapons just created additional confusion for law enforcement.
I’m not really “anti-gun”, but I think a lot of people get a false sense of security from having a gun and don’t properly weight the actual risks.
Being in the army makes you understand how venerable you are in a large crowd. Especially a movie theater where there are limited exits and mobility due to the rows of chairs. I don’t like being in such situations where it didn’t bother me before.
I’ve gone 34 years without needing a seatbelt yet I still wear one.
One of the basis of the idea that more guns = less crime is that criminals prefer to attack people they know will not be able to defend themselves. A place which has disarmed it’s customers helps criminals know they’ve got safer targets.
I think criminals are simply inclined to escalate the use of force far out of proportion to maximize their chance of success for robbery, murder, or whatever.
Take, for example, gangs in Chicago. There’s no shortage of guns or murder in Chicago. If Gang A thinks Gang B is heavily armed, under your theory of “more guns equals less violence,” Gang A would be at least somewhat deterred from quarreling with Gang B. Right?
But that doesn’t seem like the case. Instead, Gang A just uses different tactics – ambushes, drive-bys, etc – to increase their chance of survival in a fight.
With your military background, this should be pretty common sense to you. When faced with overwhelming American firepower, insurgents don’t resign themselves to a fair fight which they would likely lose. They change tactics to try to tilt the odds in their favor.
Ditto. What about my right to not be shot by crazy gun-toting lunatics? I want to be in gun-free environments. At all times. Anyone who thinks they need to carry a gun into Walmart or other stores is someone who shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun.
Well, yes. Your sacrifice and service for your country should be appreciated.
I don’t know that the data actually supports that though. The occasional mass-shooter aside, criminals go to where they think they can commit their crimes and get away with it.
Your chances of getting killed in a mass shooting in the US are relatively rare. According to this chart, only about 20x as many people were killed last year in mass shootings (around 400) as were killed by a dog or a cow. In contrast, about 30,000 people are killed by cars.
It would be interesting to see how the law is written. Does the court have the opportunity to decide this or does the legislation impose an assumption that the “good guy with a gun” would have been able to prevent the injury? The OP isn’t clear.
Someone running a rodeo or skating rink or ski resort or kart track is making their place less safe than if they didn’t.
When you see the sign and agree to leave your gun in your car, you are taking on the risk.
Actually I wouldn’t be too sure of that; the example cited. A parking lot is considered public but once you cross inside the doors the owner could be held responsible; at least in theory. You would need a good lawyer and some luck but I can see places where it could fly.
risk of what? Not shooting anyone?