How Irresponsible Is This Law?

[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

Actually, the law makes perfect sense.

If you are going to assume responsibility for my safety, by denying me the right to protect myself, then you should be liable for my safety - and when you fail, I will sue your ass into oblivion.

Not unless you can show that I didnt take reasonable measures to ensure your safety. You dont have enough money to sue me personally. However, you wouldnt know that since you dont know jack shit about the law.

You're right --- I don't know jack shit about the law ... but I did walk down the hall and ask the 14 attorneys that work for me. They all agree you would be liable if I were injured or killed. Ask the owner of the Aurora theater - he was sued into bankruptcy. Ask the Columbine school district --- millions of dollars.

As for not having enough money to sue you ---- I think I could scrape up a nickel or two to get it done.

For what it's worth, The vote was 11-3 that the law is valid and wouldn't be overturned.

You should ask your fake attorneys to explain this then. Seems like they think you are an idiot or they are idiots.

Cinemark seeks $700,000 from Aurora theater shootings victims after winning lawsuit over liability

"Cinemark, the company that owns the Aurora cineplex where 12 people were murdered in 2012, is seeking nearly $700,000 from several victims of the attack who unsuccessfully sued the theater chain."

 

[Spare_change]

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

Actually, the law makes perfect sense.

If you are going to assume responsibility for my safety, by denying me the right to protect myself, then you should be liable for my safety - and when you fail, I will sue your ass into oblivion.

Not unless you can show that I didnt take reasonable measures to ensure your safety. You dont have enough money to sue me personally. However, you wouldnt know that since you dont know jack shit about the law.

You're right --- I don't know jack shit about the law ... but I did walk down the hall and ask the 14 attorneys that work for me. They all agree you would be liable if I were injured or killed. Ask the owner of the Aurora theater - he was sued into bankruptcy. Ask the Columbine school district --- millions of dollars.

As for not having enough money to sue you ---- I think I could scrape up a nickel or two to get it done.

For what it's worth, The vote was 11-3 that the law is valid and wouldn't be overturned.

You should ask your fake attorneys to explain this then. Seems like they think you are an idiot or they are idiots.

Cinemark seeks $700,000 from Aurora theater shootings victims after winning lawsuit over liability

"Cinemark, the company that owns the Aurora cineplex where 12 people were murdered in 2012, is seeking nearly $700,000 from several victims of the attack who unsuccessfully sued the theater chain."

I'll be happy to explain it to you. Isn't Google a wonderful thing when you use it to embarrass yourself???

Cinemark was named a defendant on the liability lawsuit --- they were a second tier defendant, because they were not the primary owners and operators of the theater (they leased the space to another company).

When the defendants sued, they sued everybody that was still breathing - to include the police, the fire department, Cinemark, the operators of the theater, the security company that was under contract. (I think they even sued the shooter's dog, but that could be just a rumor.)

The operator was found negligent, the security company was found negligent, but Cinemark, because they had no operational control of the theater, were able to get the charges against them dismissed. Subsequently, they are suing for their legal costs.

Now, don't you just feel stupid ???

 

[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

Actually, the law makes perfect sense.

If you are going to assume responsibility for my safety, by denying me the right to protect myself, then you should be liable for my safety - and when you fail, I will sue your ass into oblivion.

Not unless you can show that I didnt take reasonable measures to ensure your safety. You dont have enough money to sue me personally. However, you wouldnt know that since you dont know jack shit about the law.

You're right --- I don't know jack shit about the law ... but I did walk down the hall and ask the 14 attorneys that work for me. They all agree you would be liable if I were injured or killed. Ask the owner of the Aurora theater - he was sued into bankruptcy. Ask the Columbine school district --- millions of dollars.

As for not having enough money to sue you ---- I think I could scrape up a nickel or two to get it done.

For what it's worth, The vote was 11-3 that the law is valid and wouldn't be overturned.

You should ask your fake attorneys to explain this then. Seems like they think you are an idiot or they are idiots.

Cinemark seeks $700,000 from Aurora theater shootings victims after winning lawsuit over liability

"Cinemark, the company that owns the Aurora cineplex where 12 people were murdered in 2012, is seeking nearly $700,000 from several victims of the attack who unsuccessfully sued the theater chain."

I'll be happy to explain it to you. Isn't Google a wonderful thing when you use it to embarrass yourself???

Cinemark was named a defendant on the liability lawsuit --- they were a second tier defendant, because they were not the primary owners and operators of the theater (they leased the space to another company).

When the defendants sued, they sued everybody that was still breathing - to include the police, the fire department, Cinemark, the operators of the theater, the security company that was under contract. (I think they even sued the shooter's dog, but that could be just a rumor.)

The operator was found negligent, the security company was found negligent, but Cinemark, because they had no operational control of the theater, were able to get the charges against them dismissed. Subsequently, they are suing for their legal costs.

Now, don't you just feel stupid ???

Hey dummy. It says right in the article that Cinemark is the owner so try not to lie again. I dont care who they tried to sue. The point is that they have no case except maybe the families of the two shooters and anyone found negligent. Dont you feel stupid now?

 

[Spare_change]

Actually, the law makes perfect sense.

If you are going to assume responsibility for my safety, by denying me the right to protect myself, then you should be liable for my safety - and when you fail, I will sue your ass into oblivion.

Not unless you can show that I didnt take reasonable measures to ensure your safety. You dont have enough money to sue me personally. However, you wouldnt know that since you dont know jack shit about the law.

You're right --- I don't know jack shit about the law ... but I did walk down the hall and ask the 14 attorneys that work for me. They all agree you would be liable if I were injured or killed. Ask the owner of the Aurora theater - he was sued into bankruptcy. Ask the Columbine school district --- millions of dollars.

As for not having enough money to sue you ---- I think I could scrape up a nickel or two to get it done.

For what it's worth, The vote was 11-3 that the law is valid and wouldn't be overturned.

You should ask your fake attorneys to explain this then. Seems like they think you are an idiot or they are idiots.

Cinemark seeks $700,000 from Aurora theater shootings victims after winning lawsuit over liability

"Cinemark, the company that owns the Aurora cineplex where 12 people were murdered in 2012, is seeking nearly $700,000 from several victims of the attack who unsuccessfully sued the theater chain."

I'll be happy to explain it to you. Isn't Google a wonderful thing when you use it to embarrass yourself???

Cinemark was named a defendant on the liability lawsuit --- they were a second tier defendant, because they were not the primary owners and operators of the theater (they leased the space to another company).

When the defendants sued, they sued everybody that was still breathing - to include the police, the fire department, Cinemark, the operators of the theater, the security company that was under contract. (I think they even sued the shooter's dog, but that could be just a rumor.)

The operator was found negligent, the security company was found negligent, but Cinemark, because they had no operational control of the theater, were able to get the charges against them dismissed. Subsequently, they are suing for their legal costs.

Now, don't you just feel stupid ???

Hey dummy. It says right in the article that Cinemark is the owner so try not to lie again. I dont care who they tried to sue. The point is that they have no case except maybe the families of the two shooters and anyone found negligent. Dont you feel stupid now?

Do your DAMN homework.

Cinemark owns the building - and they lease the theater to an independent operator. The operator was sued into bankruptcy. Cinemark, BECAUSE they had not direct supervisorial responsibility, had the charges against them dismissed.

Get your head out of your ass, and spend more than 15 seconds on Google looking for a headline that will justify your predetermined position.

Geesh ... read the whole fucking story before you start making shit up.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I like it.

This is saying, that if you are a permitted concealed carry holder, and an establishment takes your right away to enter the premises with your firearm, thus taking away a key element of your self-protection, then the establishment must then assume responsibility of your safety in the event of an attack from another patron, robber, assailant.

 

[Spare_change]

I like it.

This is saying, that if you are a permitted concealed carry holder, and an establishment takes your right away to enter the premises with your firearm, thus taking away a key element of your self-protection, then the establishment must then assume responsibility of your safety in the event of an attack from another patron, robber, assailant.

Exactly so.

Makes perfect sense who you think it thru (a talent seemingly in short supply around here)

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If I were the judge in either case I would deny the suit and throw both parties out of court. You do not have to do business with a business who denies you the right to carry a gun. Likewise, find another baker. All these lawsuits are bullshit.

That is the correct answer

 

[Spare_change]

If I were the judge in either case I would deny the suit and throw both parties out of court. You do not have to do business with a business who denies you the right to carry a gun. Likewise, find another baker. All these lawsuits are bullshit.

That is the correct answer

Sure ---- but we know it doesn't work that way, don't we?

 

[foggedinn]

This kind of stuff is why amazon and Netflix sells so well. Who wants to walk into a retail establishment when they may be shot?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

I have no plans to go to CA

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

In case you didn't know bear means carry

Show me where you have the right to violate my right to bear arms

If you invite me onto your property you cannot force me to give up my gun all you can do is ask me to leave if I then stay i will be trespassing and you have legal recourse

 

[hadit]

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.

Your store is not your private property.

You already tried this gambit before. i shot it down in a hail of facts.

No, you simply said if you closed your store you could keep out whomever you wanted. That's stupid and doesn't address reality.

 

[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

In case you didn't know bear means carry

Show me where you have the right to violate my right to bear arms

If you invite me onto your property you cannot force me to give up my gun all you can do is ask me to leave if I then stay i will be trespassing and you have legal recourse

Hey dummy. I can force you to give up your gun before you step onto my property. Stop deflecting and show me where you have the right to bring a gun onto my property.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Your store is not your private property.

You already tried this gambit before. i shot it down in a hail of facts.

No, you simply said if you closed your store you could keep out whomever you wanted. That's stupid and doesn't address reality.

The reality is that there is nothing that protects your right to bring a gun into a store. If there was you would show me.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

In case you didn't know bear means carry

Show me where you have the right to violate my right to bear arms

If you invite me onto your property you cannot force me to give up my gun all you can do is ask me to leave if I then stay i will be trespassing and you have legal recourse

Hey dummy. I can force you to give up your gun before you step onto my property. Stop deflecting and show me where you have the right to bring a gun onto my property.

No you can't. If you lay hands on me then you are guilty of assault. All you can do is tell me I am not allowed onto your property but you cannot disarm me

I have the right to bear arms. If you invite me onto your property I still have the right to bear arms. If you do not want me to bear arms while on your property all you can do is deny me permission to be on your property. If I then enter your property I am guilty of trespassing and you can have me removed.

But you cannot physically disarm me without being guilty of assault

And I'll say this again if I were carrying you wouldn't know it anyway so unless you frisk everyone before they step onto your property and if you do you will again be guilty of assault you'll never know who has a gun and who doesn't

 

[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

The right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed

In case you didn't know bear means carry

Show me where you have the right to violate my right to bear arms

If you invite me onto your property you cannot force me to give up my gun all you can do is ask me to leave if I then stay i will be trespassing and you have legal recourse

Hey dummy. I can force you to give up your gun before you step onto my property. Stop deflecting and show me where you have the right to bring a gun onto my property.

No you can't. If you lay hands on me then you are guilty of assault. All you can do is tell me I am not allowed onto your property but you cannot disarm me

I have the right to bear arms. If you invite me onto your property I still have the right to bear arms. If you do not want me to bear arms while on your property all you can do is deny me permission to be on your property. If I then enter your property I am guilty of trespassing and you can have me removed.

But you cannot physically disarm me without being guilty of assault

I dont have to lay hands on you and I never said i would disarm you. All I have to do is not open the door until you give up the gun. Or I could shoot you and say you were threatening me. Your choice.

I see you finally got it. You dont have the right to have a gun on my property. If you did have the right you could be on my property despite the fact I didnt want you there with a gun. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

In case you didn't know bear means carry

Show me where you have the right to violate my right to bear arms

If you invite me onto your property you cannot force me to give up my gun all you can do is ask me to leave if I then stay i will be trespassing and you have legal recourse

Hey dummy. I can force you to give up your gun before you step onto my property. Stop deflecting and show me where you have the right to bring a gun onto my property.

No you can't. If you lay hands on me then you are guilty of assault. All you can do is tell me I am not allowed onto your property but you cannot disarm me

I have the right to bear arms. If you invite me onto your property I still have the right to bear arms. If you do not want me to bear arms while on your property all you can do is deny me permission to be on your property. If I then enter your property I am guilty of trespassing and you can have me removed.

But you cannot physically disarm me without being guilty of assault

I dont have to lay hands on you and I never said i would disarm you. All I have to do is not open the door until you give up the gun. Or I could shoot you and say you were threatening me. Your choice.

I see you finally got it. You dont have the right to have a gun on my property. If you did have the right you could be on my property despite the fact I didnt want you there with a gun. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

And you could ask if I'm carrying all I have to do is say no and again you wouldn't be the wiser
so you see I'll walk in with a gun if I want to and you'll never know unless you assault me to find out

 

[Asclepias]

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

In case you didn't know bear means carry

Show me where you have the right to violate my right to bear arms

If you invite me onto your property you cannot force me to give up my gun all you can do is ask me to leave if I then stay i will be trespassing and you have legal recourse

Hey dummy. I can force you to give up your gun before you step onto my property. Stop deflecting and show me where you have the right to bring a gun onto my property.

No you can't. If you lay hands on me then you are guilty of assault. All you can do is tell me I am not allowed onto your property but you cannot disarm me

I have the right to bear arms. If you invite me onto your property I still have the right to bear arms. If you do not want me to bear arms while on your property all you can do is deny me permission to be on your property. If I then enter your property I am guilty of trespassing and you can have me removed.

But you cannot physically disarm me without being guilty of assault

I dont have to lay hands on you and I never said i would disarm you. All I have to do is not open the door until you give up the gun. Or I could shoot you and say you were threatening me. Your choice.

I see you finally got it. You dont have the right to have a gun on my property. If you did have the right you could be on my property despite the fact I didnt want you there with a gun. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

And you could ask if I'm carrying all I have to do is say no and again you wouldn't be the wiser
so you see I'll walk in with a gun if I want to and you'll never know unless you assault me to find out

I wouldnt ask. i would pat you down to make sure. You would then have the choice of leaving or putting your gun away in your car. I am the only one allowed to have a firearm on my property. I make the rules.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed

In case you didn't know bear means carry

Show me where you have the right to violate my right to bear arms

If you invite me onto your property you cannot force me to give up my gun all you can do is ask me to leave if I then stay i will be trespassing and you have legal recourse

Hey dummy. I can force you to give up your gun before you step onto my property. Stop deflecting and show me where you have the right to bring a gun onto my property.

No you can't. If you lay hands on me then you are guilty of assault. All you can do is tell me I am not allowed onto your property but you cannot disarm me

I have the right to bear arms. If you invite me onto your property I still have the right to bear arms. If you do not want me to bear arms while on your property all you can do is deny me permission to be on your property. If I then enter your property I am guilty of trespassing and you can have me removed.

But you cannot physically disarm me without being guilty of assault

I dont have to lay hands on you and I never said i would disarm you. All I have to do is not open the door until you give up the gun. Or I could shoot you and say you were threatening me. Your choice.

I see you finally got it. You dont have the right to have a gun on my property. If you did have the right you could be on my property despite the fact I didnt want you there with a gun. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

And you could ask if I'm carrying all I have to do is say no and again you wouldn't be the wiser
so you see I'll walk in with a gun if I want to and you'll never know unless you assault me to find out

I wouldnt ask. i would pat you down to make sure. You would then have the choice of leaving or putting your gun away in your car.

If you touch me without my permission then I'll have you charged with assault

 

[Asclepias]

Hey dummy. I can force you to give up your gun before you step onto my property. Stop deflecting and show me where you have the right to bring a gun onto my property.

No you can't. If you lay hands on me then you are guilty of assault. All you can do is tell me I am not allowed onto your property but you cannot disarm me

I have the right to bear arms. If you invite me onto your property I still have the right to bear arms. If you do not want me to bear arms while on your property all you can do is deny me permission to be on your property. If I then enter your property I am guilty of trespassing and you can have me removed.

But you cannot physically disarm me without being guilty of assault

I dont have to lay hands on you and I never said i would disarm you. All I have to do is not open the door until you give up the gun. Or I could shoot you and say you were threatening me. Your choice.

I see you finally got it. You dont have the right to have a gun on my property. If you did have the right you could be on my property despite the fact I didnt want you there with a gun. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

And you could ask if I'm carrying all I have to do is say no and again you wouldn't be the wiser
so you see I'll walk in with a gun if I want to and you'll never know unless you assault me to find out

I wouldnt ask. i would pat you down to make sure. You would then have the choice of leaving or putting your gun away in your car.

If you touch me without my permission then I'll have you charged with assault

You would give permission or you would be finding someone elses property to stand on with your gun.