How Irresponsible Is This Law?

[WillowTree]

And yet, people die in courthouses, schools, churches, airplanes, airports. How many people are killed in small business?

Really? Who has been killed in a courthouse recently?

And Airlines can and are sued when a plane crashes. And I don't know if Airports aren't sued if people get killed while inside.
in 1991 in Luby's 23 people were killed
1993 7 people killed in Brown's Chicken
2000 5 people killed in a Wendy's

We had a judge shot and killed on the bench. We have had estranged couples shooting at each other

Are your state courts gun free zones?
If they are and the state didn't prevent someone from carrying then yes they are liable and I am willing to be they can be sued

So, if you get shot in California can you sue California?

CA is not a gun free state and allows concealed carry

Not for you it isn't


May I carry a concealed firearm in California?

• 
  Generally you may not carry a concealed firearm on your person in public unless you have a valid Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license. CCW licenses are issued only by a California county sheriff to residents of the county, or the chief of police to residents of the city. California law does not honor or recognize CCW licenses issued outside this state.

Frequently Asked Questions

 

[Asclepias]

If you can sue a baker for not baking a cake for a gay marriage...then if they deny you your 2nd Amendment Right, to carry a gun, they should just be sued for that.....just like the baker....a Right is a Right....and if you are injured on their property because they denied you your Right....that should be added on to everything else.....

No dummy. It doesnt say you can sue them for not allowing you to carry a gun. It says you can sue them if you get injured while they have a sign that says no guns allowed. Something that is already law.

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someone elses property.

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

if you actively deny by your actions the right of people to conceal carry for their protection, then you should be liable if they are injured due to their being denied their right to carry at your establishment.

Thus, if you truly want to create a "gun free zone", you can't just place a feel good sign in your window, you have to provide some screening method to assure the area is gun free, or face the consequences if someone robs your place and harms a person who would have normally been armed.

You are already liable for the protection of people on your property. You dont need a second law specifically for gun owners.

 

[martybegan]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

if you actively deny by your actions the right of people to conceal carry for their protection, then you should be liable if they are injured due to their being denied their right to carry at your establishment.

Thus, if you truly want to create a "gun free zone", you can't just place a feel good sign in your window, you have to provide some screening method to assure the area is gun free, or face the consequences if someone robs your place and harms a person who would have normally been armed.

You are already liable for the protection of people on your property. You dont need a second law specifically for gun owners.

So if someone robs a bank, and gets shot, in any situation the bank is liable?

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

if you actively deny by your actions the right of people to conceal carry for their protection, then you should be liable if they are injured due to their being denied their right to carry at your establishment.

Thus, if you truly want to create a "gun free zone", you can't just place a feel good sign in your window, you have to provide some screening method to assure the area is gun free, or face the consequences if someone robs your place and harms a person who would have normally been armed.

You are already liable for the protection of people on your property. You dont need a second law specifically for gun owners.

So if someone robs a bank, and gets shot, in any situation the bank is liable?

Did you read the post you replied to?

 

[martybegan]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

if you actively deny by your actions the right of people to conceal carry for their protection, then you should be liable if they are injured due to their being denied their right to carry at your establishment.

Thus, if you truly want to create a "gun free zone", you can't just place a feel good sign in your window, you have to provide some screening method to assure the area is gun free, or face the consequences if someone robs your place and harms a person who would have normally been armed.

You are already liable for the protection of people on your property. You dont need a second law specifically for gun owners.

So if someone robs a bank, and gets shot, in any situation the bank is liable?

Did you read the post you replied to?

yes. and?

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

if you actively deny by your actions the right of people to conceal carry for their protection, then you should be liable if they are injured due to their being denied their right to carry at your establishment.

Thus, if you truly want to create a "gun free zone", you can't just place a feel good sign in your window, you have to provide some screening method to assure the area is gun free, or face the consequences if someone robs your place and harms a person who would have normally been armed.

You are already liable for the protection of people on your property. You dont need a second law specifically for gun owners.

So if someone robs a bank, and gets shot, in any situation the bank is liable?

Did you read the post you replied to?

yes. and?

Have an adult that loves you waste their time explaining how a bank that doesnt make an attempt to protect you will be liable.

 

[martybegan]

if you actively deny by your actions the right of people to conceal carry for their protection, then you should be liable if they are injured due to their being denied their right to carry at your establishment.

Thus, if you truly want to create a "gun free zone", you can't just place a feel good sign in your window, you have to provide some screening method to assure the area is gun free, or face the consequences if someone robs your place and harms a person who would have normally been armed.

You are already liable for the protection of people on your property. You dont need a second law specifically for gun owners.

So if someone robs a bank, and gets shot, in any situation the bank is liable?

Did you read the post you replied to?

yes. and?

Have an adult that loves you waste their time explaining how a bank that doesnt make an attempt to protect you will be liable.

Banks actually do make an attempt, at least the bigger ones. They have guards and alarm systems, showing a sense of due diligence. most also don't post "No CCW allowed" signs.

This is for the specific case of an establishment saying "leave your gun in the car/at home" and posting it plainly and clearly. They will be held liable for anyone getting hurt who can prove they would have been carrying had not the business banned it.

 

[Asclepias]

You are already liable for the protection of people on your property. You dont need a second law specifically for gun owners.

So if someone robs a bank, and gets shot, in any situation the bank is liable?

Did you read the post you replied to?

yes. and?

Have an adult that loves you waste their time explaining how a bank that doesnt make an attempt to protect you will be liable.

Banks actually do make an attempt, at least the bigger ones. They have guards and alarm systems, showing a sense of due diligence. most also don't post "No CCW allowed" signs.

This is for the specific case of an establishment saying "leave your gun in the car/at home" and posting it plainly and clearly. They will be held liable for anyone getting hurt who can prove they would have been carrying had not the business banned it.

Please follow my advice in the previous post. You are dismissed for now.

If a bank makes a reasonable attempt to protect you then it shouldnt be held liable.

It can be assumed you would most likely shoot yourself in the dick or shoot another bystander when placed in a stressful situation

 

[martybegan]

So if someone robs a bank, and gets shot, in any situation the bank is liable?

Did you read the post you replied to?

yes. and?

Have an adult that loves you waste their time explaining how a bank that doesnt make an attempt to protect you will be liable.

Banks actually do make an attempt, at least the bigger ones. They have guards and alarm systems, showing a sense of due diligence. most also don't post "No CCW allowed" signs.

This is for the specific case of an establishment saying "leave your gun in the car/at home" and posting it plainly and clearly. They will be held liable for anyone getting hurt who can prove they would have been carrying had not the business banned it.

Please follow my advice in the previous post. You are dismissed for now.

Sorry that I am not following your narrative. May I suggest the Hello Kitty Message Board as something more your speed?

 

[hadit]

If you can sue a baker for not baking a cake for a gay marriage...then if they deny you your 2nd Amendment Right, to carry a gun, they should just be sued for that.....just like the baker....a Right is a Right....and if you are injured on their property because they denied you your Right....that should be added on to everything else.....

No dummy. It doesnt say you can sue them for not allowing you to carry a gun. It says you can sue them if you get injured while they have a sign that says no guns allowed. Something that is already law.

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someone elses property.

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

Sorry, your store is not your private property. If it were, you would be free to keep anyone out of it you wanted to, by skin color or what they wear.

 

[Asclepias]

No dummy. It doesnt say you can sue them for not allowing you to carry a gun. It says you can sue them if you get injured while they have a sign that says no guns allowed. Something that is already law.

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someone elses property.

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

Sorry, your store is not your private property. If it were, you would be free to keep anyone out of it you wanted to, by skin color or what they wear.

Dont be sorry that you dont know what you are talking about. if you close your store you can keep out anyone you want. Public accommodation laws dont mention weapons.

 

[hadit]

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someone elses property.

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

Sorry, your store is not your private property. If it were, you would be free to keep anyone out of it you wanted to, by skin color or what they wear.

Dont be sorry that you dont know what you are talking about. if you close your store you can keep out anyone you want. Public accommodation laws dont mention weapons.

Hmmm, closing your store to keep out CCW holders. Sounds like a democrat thing to do, but has nothing to do with the fact that you couldn't, for example, keep white people out of your store like you could out of your house.

 

[Asclepias]

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someone elses property.

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

Sorry, your store is not your private property. If it were, you would be free to keep anyone out of it you wanted to, by skin color or what they wear.

Dont be sorry that you dont know what you are talking about. if you close your store you can keep out anyone you want. Public accommodation laws dont mention weapons.

Hmmm, closing your store to keep out CCW holders. Sounds like a democrat thing to do, but has nothing to do with the fact that you couldn't, for example, keep white people out of your store like you could out of your house.

Thats not what i was saying but if it makes you feel good continue.

You cant keep white people out because of public accommodations laws. None of the laws have anything to do with them bringing a gun onto your property. If you can show me one of those laws that say you have to let gun wielding non LEOs into your store you would be more believable.

 

[2aguy]

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someone elses property.

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

Sorry, your store is not your private property. If it were, you would be free to keep anyone out of it you wanted to, by skin color or what they wear.

Dont be sorry that you dont know what you are talking about. if you close your store you can keep out anyone you want. Public accommodation laws dont mention weapons.

We aren't talking weapons moron...we are talking the Right.....yes, the RIght....to bear arms.....as codified in the Bill of Rights........the ones actually written down so people like you could see them......obviously it isn't enough, but they are actually written down.......

Once you twits allowed bakers to be sued over gay marriage, you now have to allow people to exercise their Right to bear arms....or get sued....

 

[2aguy]

If you can sue a baker for not baking a cake for a gay marriage...then if they deny you your 2nd Amendment Right, to carry a gun, they should just be sued for that.....just like the baker....a Right is a Right....and if you are injured on their property because they denied you your Right....that should be added on to everything else.....

No dummy. It doesnt say you can sue them for not allowing you to carry a gun. It says you can sue them if you get injured while they have a sign that says no guns allowed. Something that is already law.

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someone elses property.

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed......there you go......once you attacked wedding photographers for gay weddings....you opened the door to making businesses comply with all the Rights....the actual ones, and not just the ones you make up....

 

[Asclepias]

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someone elses property.

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

Sorry, your store is not your private property. If it were, you would be free to keep anyone out of it you wanted to, by skin color or what they wear.

Dont be sorry that you dont know what you are talking about. if you close your store you can keep out anyone you want. Public accommodation laws dont mention weapons.

We aren't talking weapons moron...we are talking the Right.....yes, the RIght....to bear arms.....as codified in the Bill of Rights........the ones actually written down so people like you could see them......obviously it isn't enough, but they are actually written down.......

Once you twits allowed bakers to be sued over gay marriage, you now have to allow people to exercise their Right to bear arms....or get sued....

Public accommodation laws dont mention guns which are weapons. The 2nd doesnt say you get to carry those arms on someones private property. Stop stalling and show me if it does.

 

[Asclepias]

No dummy. It doesnt say you can sue them for not allowing you to carry a gun. It says you can sue them if you get injured while they have a sign that says no guns allowed. Something that is already law.

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someone elses property.

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed......there you go......once you attacked wedding photographers for gay weddings....you opened the door to making businesses comply with all the Rights....the actual ones, and not just the ones you make up....

Infringed by the government. Not a property owner dummy.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

So you lefties think its ok to sue a gun manufacturer for some wacko killing a bunch of people but not a business that could have prevented a mass murder if a customer would have been allowed to carry. I hope more of you jump on this hypocritical band wagon.

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

So you lefties think its ok to sue a gun manufacturer for some wacko killing a bunch of people but not a business that could have prevented a mass murder if a customer would have been allowed to carry. I hope more of you jump on this hypocritical band wagon.

I'm a lefty and I think its stupid to sue a gun maker because some retard like you killed a bunch of people.