Tennessee Is Spot On

[flacaltenn]

what part of tn are you moving to

North of Ashland City.

-Geaux

Welcome to Tennessee Geaux.. You're gonna like the rolling hills and friendly folks.. Just get new plates as quick as you can...

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Note to self; don't do business in Tennessee.

They should call it the Damned If You Do--Damned If You Don't State.

We don't need your tye-died neckerchiefs and worshipping crystals. You can visit tho.. Nascar or Grand Ole Opry -- your choice..

It would have been an over-reach if they had forced shop owners to recognize carry permits. But just a "victim protection" law is not that offensive to my "civil liberties" meter. The shop owner is perfectly OK to ban guns on premises. But if they denied a right to self-protection -- they are culpable in the harm..

What's next? Bars that don't administer sobriety tests when a patron leaves are responsible for any harm they may cause?


Good grief you authoritarians never stop.

 

[2aguy]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that fucking works.


God damned authoritarians.

As soon as bakers, photographers and pizza makers are given the same courtesy I am right there with you...till then, screw em........

 

[2aguy]

So....if you own a bar
You have to let the drunks be armed

If you go to a football game, the drunken fans from the other team are allowed to be both armed and obnoxious

yeah...no.......you let normal, law abiding people carry guns...if they are drunk, you arrest them.

 

[reconmark]

Note to self; don't do business in Tennessee.

They should call it the Damned If You Do--Damned If You Don't State.

We don't need your tye-died neckerchiefs and worshipping crystals. You can visit tho.. Nascar or Grand Ole Opry -- your choice..

It would have been an over-reach if they had forced shop owners to recognize carry permits. But just a "victim protection" law is not that offensive to my "civil liberties" meter. The shop owner is perfectly OK to ban guns on premises. But if they denied a right to self-protection -- they are culpable in the harm..

What's next? Bars that don't administer sobriety tests when a patron leaves are responsible for any harm they may cause?


Good grief you authoritarians never stop.

Stop it!!!...why are you using that goobly gop common sense stuff???

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Note to self; don't do business in Tennessee.

They should call it the Damned If You Do--Damned If You Don't State.

We don't need your tye-died neckerchiefs and worshipping crystals. You can visit tho.. Nascar or Grand Ole Opry -- your choice..

It would have been an over-reach if they had forced shop owners to recognize carry permits. But just a "victim protection" law is not that offensive to my "civil liberties" meter. The shop owner is perfectly OK to ban guns on premises. But if they denied a right to self-protection -- they are culpable in the harm..

What's next? Bars that don't administer sobriety tests when a patron leaves are responsible for any harm they may cause?


Good grief you authoritarians never stop.

Stop it!!!...why are you using that goobly gop common sense stuff???

Funny thing is , tomorrow you will hate me when I use the same common sense to destroy some of the crazy liberal bullshit that is out there.


It's what I do

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that fucking works.


God damned authoritarians.

As soon as bakers, photographers and pizza makers are given the same courtesy I am right there with you...till then, screw em........

I , as you know, 100% agree with you bro, but you don't fight authoritarianism with more authoritarianism.

 

[reconmark]

Note to self; don't do business in Tennessee.

They should call it the Damned If You Do--Damned If You Don't State.

We don't need your tye-died neckerchiefs and worshipping crystals. You can visit tho.. Nascar or Grand Ole Opry -- your choice..

It would have been an over-reach if they had forced shop owners to recognize carry permits. But just a "victim protection" law is not that offensive to my "civil liberties" meter. The shop owner is perfectly OK to ban guns on premises. But if they denied a right to self-protection -- they are culpable in the harm..

What's next? Bars that don't administer sobriety tests when a patron leaves are responsible for any harm they may cause?


Good grief you authoritarians never stop.

Stop it!!!...why are you using that goobly gop common sense stuff???

Funny thing is , tomorrow you will hate me when I use the same common sense to destroy some of the crazy liberal bullshit that is out there.


It's what I do

You can't be on the right side of things all the time....

 

[2aguy]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that fucking works.


God damned authoritarians.

As soon as bakers, photographers and pizza makers are given the same courtesy I am right there with you...till then, screw em........

I , as you know, 100% agree with you bro, but you don't fight authoritarianism with more authoritarianism.

If you have enough guns you do.........

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Note to self; don't do business in Tennessee.

They should call it the Damned If You Do--Damned If You Don't State.

We don't need your tye-died neckerchiefs and worshipping crystals. You can visit tho.. Nascar or Grand Ole Opry -- your choice..

It would have been an over-reach if they had forced shop owners to recognize carry permits. But just a "victim protection" law is not that offensive to my "civil liberties" meter. The shop owner is perfectly OK to ban guns on premises. But if they denied a right to self-protection -- they are culpable in the harm..

What's next? Bars that don't administer sobriety tests when a patron leaves are responsible for any harm they may cause?


Good grief you authoritarians never stop.

Stop it!!!...why are you using that goobly gop common sense stuff???

Funny thing is , tomorrow you will hate me when I use the same common sense to destroy some of the crazy liberal bullshit that is out there.


It's what I do

You can't be on the right side of things all the time....

I am ALWAYS right because i simply don't care about the politics of things, right is right and wrong is wrong and partisans are stupid.

 

[reconmark]

We don't need your tye-died neckerchiefs and worshipping crystals. You can visit tho.. Nascar or Grand Ole Opry -- your choice..

It would have been an over-reach if they had forced shop owners to recognize carry permits. But just a "victim protection" law is not that offensive to my "civil liberties" meter. The shop owner is perfectly OK to ban guns on premises. But if they denied a right to self-protection -- they are culpable in the harm..

What's next? Bars that don't administer sobriety tests when a patron leaves are responsible for any harm they may cause?


Good grief you authoritarians never stop.

Stop it!!!...why are you using that goobly gop common sense stuff???

Funny thing is , tomorrow you will hate me when I use the same common sense to destroy some of the crazy liberal bullshit that is out there.


It's what I do

You can't be on the right side of things all the time....

I am ALWAYS right because i simply don't care about the politics of things, right is right and wrong is wrong and partisans are stupid.

No one is always right irregardless of ideology...

 

[Fair&Balanced]

What's next? Bars that don't administer sobriety tests when a patron leaves are responsible for any harm they may cause?


Good grief you authoritarians never stop.

Stop it!!!...why are you using that goobly gop common sense stuff???

Funny thing is , tomorrow you will hate me when I use the same common sense to destroy some of the crazy liberal bullshit that is out there.


It's what I do

You can't be on the right side of things all the time....

I am ALWAYS right because i simply don't care about the politics of things, right is right and wrong is wrong and partisans are stupid.

No one is always right irregardless of ideology...

Incorrect. i am ALWAYS right. Oh I may make an error in facts or whatever, but I'm willing to look at facts and such before rendering an opinion. Most aren't. Most posters have their minds made up before they even open a thread.

 

[reconmark]

Stop it!!!...why are you using that goobly gop common sense stuff???

Funny thing is , tomorrow you will hate me when I use the same common sense to destroy some of the crazy liberal bullshit that is out there.


It's what I do

You can't be on the right side of things all the time....

I am ALWAYS right because i simply don't care about the politics of things, right is right and wrong is wrong and partisans are stupid.

No one is always right irregardless of ideology...

Incorrect. i am ALWAYS right. Oh I may make an error in facts or whatever, but I'm willing to look at facts and such before rendering an opinion. Most aren't. Most posters have their minds made up before they even open a thread.

Sure...sure....

 

[martybegan]

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

If you tied your patrons hands behind their back as a condition of entry, then yes. Same as with creating a gun free zone that you don't guarantee as gun free.

Their hands aren't tied behind their back in any fashion...your logic doesn't fly.

Lets clarify it. Say you own a bar where, as a condition for entry, everyone ties their hands behind their backs. Now you don't check to see if this is done to closely, but you insist on it. So everyone does it, except one guy, who pretends to tie his hands behind his back. He then proceeds to deck several people, who can't defend themself because of 1) your rule and 2) your lazy attitude on checking to see if it is followed.

Why wouldn't the owner be liable for your injury?

 

[martybegan]

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

If you tied your patrons hands behind their back as a condition of entry, then yes. Same as with creating a gun free zone that you don't guarantee as gun free.

Your hands aren't tied behind your back cuz you don't get to pack your spare penis in a holster and carry it with you everywhere you go.

The "gun=dick" line is the godwin's law equivalent in the gun control debate.

You automatically lose the argument.

 

[flacaltenn]

Note to self; don't do business in Tennessee.

They should call it the Damned If You Do--Damned If You Don't State.

We don't need your tye-died neckerchiefs and worshipping crystals. You can visit tho.. Nascar or Grand Ole Opry -- your choice..

It would have been an over-reach if they had forced shop owners to recognize carry permits. But just a "victim protection" law is not that offensive to my "civil liberties" meter. The shop owner is perfectly OK to ban guns on premises. But if they denied a right to self-protection -- they are culpable in the harm..

What's next? Bars that don't administer sobriety tests when a patron leaves are responsible for any harm they may cause?


Good grief you authoritarians never stop.

Difference is -- this law doesn't FORCE proprietors to do ANYTHING.. Only to be responsible for denying folks the right of protection if anything goes wrong..

 

[reconmark]

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

If you tied your patrons hands behind their back as a condition of entry, then yes. Same as with creating a gun free zone that you don't guarantee as gun free.

Their hands aren't tied behind their back in any fashion...your logic doesn't fly.

Lets clarify it. Say you own a bar where, as a condition for entry, everyone ties their hands behind their backs. Now you don't check to see if this is done to closely, but you insist on it. So everyone does it, except one guy, who pretends to tie his hands behind his back. He then proceeds to deck several people, who can't defend themself because of 1) your rule and 2) your lazy attitude on checking to see if it is followed.

Why wouldn't the owner be liable for your injury?

Let's clarify it using common sense and reality, not some idiot version of "hands behind your back".
I own a bar and I don't want firearms in it because I'm smart enough to know that the combination of too many drunks and guns in a room is a disaster waiting to happen.
You tell me that your right to carry your gun along with everyone else's trumps the common sense and safety of everyone else in the bar.
Two drunk idiots in the corner start fighting but because of the loud music you don't hear the commotion and are mistakenly shot.

Your next order of business id to try to sue me because I should have known that alcohol and guns are a volatile mixture...

 

[martybegan]

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

If you tied your patrons hands behind their back as a condition of entry, then yes. Same as with creating a gun free zone that you don't guarantee as gun free.

Their hands aren't tied behind their back in any fashion...your logic doesn't fly.

Lets clarify it. Say you own a bar where, as a condition for entry, everyone ties their hands behind their backs. Now you don't check to see if this is done to closely, but you insist on it. So everyone does it, except one guy, who pretends to tie his hands behind his back. He then proceeds to deck several people, who can't defend themself because of 1) your rule and 2) your lazy attitude on checking to see if it is followed.

Why wouldn't the owner be liable for your injury?

Let's clarify it using common sense and reality, not some idiot version of "hands behind your back".
I own a bar and I don't want firearms in it because I'm smart enough to know that the combination of too many drunks and guns in a room is a disaster waiting to happen.
You tell me that your right to carry your gun along with everyone else's trumps the common sense and safety of everyone else in the bar.
Two drunk idiots in the corner start fighting but because of the loud music you don't hear the commotion and are mistakenly shot.

Your next order of business id to try to sue me because I should have known that alcohol and guns are a volatile mixture...

It's not about what a person knows, its the activities the person takes, in the case being discussed saying "you can't concealed carry here." In that case the person should be liable if someone leaves their gun behind, following the direction, and comes to harm because of it.

 

[flacaltenn]

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

If you tied your patrons hands behind their back as a condition of entry, then yes. Same as with creating a gun free zone that you don't guarantee as gun free.

Their hands aren't tied behind their back in any fashion...your logic doesn't fly.

Lets clarify it. Say you own a bar where, as a condition for entry, everyone ties their hands behind their backs. Now you don't check to see if this is done to closely, but you insist on it. So everyone does it, except one guy, who pretends to tie his hands behind his back. He then proceeds to deck several people, who can't defend themself because of 1) your rule and 2) your lazy attitude on checking to see if it is followed.

Why wouldn't the owner be liable for your injury?

Let's clarify it using common sense and reality, not some idiot version of "hands behind your back".
I own a bar and I don't want firearms in it because I'm smart enough to know that the combination of too many drunks and guns in a room is a disaster waiting to happen.
You tell me that your right to carry your gun along with everyone else's trumps the common sense and safety of everyone else in the bar.
Two drunk idiots in the corner start fighting but because of the loud music you don't hear the commotion and are mistakenly shot.

Your next order of business id to try to sue me because I should have known that alcohol and guns are a volatile mixture...

Wrong.... The Tennessee law to "allow guns in bars" does not FORCE the proprietor to allow them. Furthermore, the proprietor has the right not serve alcohol to people obviously carrying. They COULD ASK if they wanted to.

So nobody is FORCING owners to do anything. And it's NOT just bars -- it's every PUBLIC establishment. You just want to narrow this to "bars".. The bars on the Nashville "strip" are doing just fine. Some have signs posted -- others don't. I'm there a lot.. No shootouts -- no problems. The law applying to bars went into effect 6 years ago...

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- The Tenn law DOES force proprietors to allow off-duty cops to carry -- EVEN IN BARS.. Regardless of the postings. A lot of folks don't go to bars to get drunk or even drink. Might be hard for a leftist to comprehend.

Laws in Tenn are WELL considered and well written. They do not reflect the mass hysteria and hype of the national debate.. When we screw up -- we'll fix it -- QUICKLY... One of the advantages of living in Tenn rather than Cali..