Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let's clarify it using common sense and reality, not some idiot version of "hands behind your back".Their hands aren't tied behind their back in any fashion...your logic doesn't fly.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.
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?
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...
Let's clarify it using common sense and reality, not some idiot version of "hands behind your back".Their hands aren't tied behind their back in any fashion...your logic doesn't fly.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.
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?
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...
OF COURSE it forces proprietors to let guns in. "let guns in or if something bad happens you are responsible"
Do you not see how that could lead to "you must have an armed guard or if something bad happens you are responsible"
All this law is a money grab to make someone pay if something bad happens.
No different than allowing gun manufactures to be sued if some numbskull kills people with their guns.
STUPIDITY.
Let's clarify it using common sense and reality, not some idiot version of "hands behind your back".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?
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...
OF COURSE it forces proprietors to let guns in. "let guns in or if something bad happens you are responsible"
Do you not see how that could lead to "you must have an armed guard or if something bad happens you are responsible"
All this law is a money grab to make someone pay if something bad happens.
No different than allowing gun manufactures to be sued if some numbskull kills people with their guns.
STUPIDITY.
No it doesn't force owners to let them in. I guarantee that most private non-corporate biz owners in Tenn HAVE A GUN at the shop.. .Maybe they feel that's the only gun REQUIRED. And MAYBE THEY are willing to take the risk because THEY will defend or attempt to defend their customers if things go wrong.
You have no idea WHAT they are thinking because the concept of shop owners having a GUN in the first place is probably offensive to you.
If they keep weapons in the shop AND bar folks from bringing in others -- the fact that they attempted to defend their customers would CERTAINLY be considered at trial...
Let's clarify it using common sense and reality, not some idiot version of "hands behind your back".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?
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...
OF COURSE it forces proprietors to let guns in. "let guns in or if something bad happens you are responsible"
Do you not see how that could lead to "you must have an armed guard or if something bad happens you are responsible"
All this law is a money grab to make someone pay if something bad happens.
No different than allowing gun manufactures to be sued if some numbskull kills people with their guns.
STUPIDITY.
No it doesn't force owners to let them in. I guarantee that most private non-corporate biz owners in Tenn HAVE A GUN at the shop.. .Maybe they feel that's the only gun REQUIRED. And MAYBE THEY are willing to take the risk because THEY will defend or attempt to defend their customers if things go wrong.
You have no idea WHAT they are thinking because the concept of shop owners having a GUN in the first place is probably offensive to you.
If they keep weapons in the shop AND bar folks from bringing in others -- the fact that they attempted to defend their customers would CERTAINLY be considered at trial...
No sir, the idea of business owners having guns in THEIR business isn't offensive to me, the idea of business owners allowing customers to carry guns isn't offensive to me.. Shit son, I own enough firearms to arm an entire town. What IS offensive to me is the government passing ANY law that tells businesses "you do this or else" the fact that this law pertains to guns is irrelevant.
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...
OF COURSE it forces proprietors to let guns in. "let guns in or if something bad happens you are responsible"
Do you not see how that could lead to "you must have an armed guard or if something bad happens you are responsible"
All this law is a money grab to make someone pay if something bad happens.
No different than allowing gun manufactures to be sued if some numbskull kills people with their guns.
STUPIDITY.
No it doesn't force owners to let them in. I guarantee that most private non-corporate biz owners in Tenn HAVE A GUN at the shop.. .Maybe they feel that's the only gun REQUIRED. And MAYBE THEY are willing to take the risk because THEY will defend or attempt to defend their customers if things go wrong.
You have no idea WHAT they are thinking because the concept of shop owners having a GUN in the first place is probably offensive to you.
If they keep weapons in the shop AND bar folks from bringing in others -- the fact that they attempted to defend their customers would CERTAINLY be considered at trial...
No sir, the idea of business owners having guns in THEIR business isn't offensive to me, the idea of business owners allowing customers to carry guns isn't offensive to me.. Shit son, I own enough firearms to arm an entire town. What IS offensive to me is the government passing ANY law that tells businesses "you do this or else" the fact that this law pertains to guns is irrelevant.
THis law doesn't demand ANYTHING from the owners other than a plan to make up for denying walk-in patrons a right to self defense. Like I said -- the plan could be -- that the OWNER THEMSELVES are gonna make every attempt to take out people who IGNORE silly signs..
OR -- it will make owners think of the obvious -- which is that CRIMINALS don't obey "no gun" signs.
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...
OF COURSE it forces proprietors to let guns in. "let guns in or if something bad happens you are responsible"
Do you not see how that could lead to "you must have an armed guard or if something bad happens you are responsible"
All this law is a money grab to make someone pay if something bad happens.
No different than allowing gun manufactures to be sued if some numbskull kills people with their guns.
STUPIDITY.
No it doesn't force owners to let them in. I guarantee that most private non-corporate biz owners in Tenn HAVE A GUN at the shop.. .Maybe they feel that's the only gun REQUIRED. And MAYBE THEY are willing to take the risk because THEY will defend or attempt to defend their customers if things go wrong.
You have no idea WHAT they are thinking because the concept of shop owners having a GUN in the first place is probably offensive to you.
If they keep weapons in the shop AND bar folks from bringing in others -- the fact that they attempted to defend their customers would CERTAINLY be considered at trial...
No sir, the idea of business owners having guns in THEIR business isn't offensive to me, the idea of business owners allowing customers to carry guns isn't offensive to me.. Shit son, I own enough firearms to arm an entire town. What IS offensive to me is the government passing ANY law that tells businesses "you do this or else" the fact that this law pertains to guns is irrelevant.
THis law doesn't demand ANYTHING from the owners other than a plan to make up for denying walk-in patrons a right to self defense. Like I said -- the plan could be -- that the OWNER THEMSELVES are gonna make every attempt to take out people who IGNORE silly signs..
OR -- it will make owners think of the obvious -- which is that CRIMINALS don't obey "no gun" signs.
Yes, the law DOES force business owners to do something. It forces them to allow gun carrying OR face financial ruin if a third party acts stupidly.
You know what will happen here, insurance companies will insist on special "gun incident" coverage , raising the cost of business insurance, causing many businesses to go out of business.
Way to go you moronic gun turds .
OF COURSE it forces proprietors to let guns in. "let guns in or if something bad happens you are responsible"
Do you not see how that could lead to "you must have an armed guard or if something bad happens you are responsible"
All this law is a money grab to make someone pay if something bad happens.
No different than allowing gun manufactures to be sued if some numbskull kills people with their guns.
STUPIDITY.
No it doesn't force owners to let them in. I guarantee that most private non-corporate biz owners in Tenn HAVE A GUN at the shop.. .Maybe they feel that's the only gun REQUIRED. And MAYBE THEY are willing to take the risk because THEY will defend or attempt to defend their customers if things go wrong.
You have no idea WHAT they are thinking because the concept of shop owners having a GUN in the first place is probably offensive to you.
If they keep weapons in the shop AND bar folks from bringing in others -- the fact that they attempted to defend their customers would CERTAINLY be considered at trial...
No sir, the idea of business owners having guns in THEIR business isn't offensive to me, the idea of business owners allowing customers to carry guns isn't offensive to me.. Shit son, I own enough firearms to arm an entire town. What IS offensive to me is the government passing ANY law that tells businesses "you do this or else" the fact that this law pertains to guns is irrelevant.
THis law doesn't demand ANYTHING from the owners other than a plan to make up for denying walk-in patrons a right to self defense. Like I said -- the plan could be -- that the OWNER THEMSELVES are gonna make every attempt to take out people who IGNORE silly signs..
OR -- it will make owners think of the obvious -- which is that CRIMINALS don't obey "no gun" signs.
Yes, the law DOES force business owners to do something. It forces them to allow gun carrying OR face financial ruin if a third party acts stupidly.
You know what will happen here, insurance companies will insist on special "gun incident" coverage , raising the cost of business insurance, causing many businesses to go out of business.
Way to go you moronic gun turds .
Nope.. I gave you Option 3 and you conveniently ignored it.. Which means you're soapboxing and not debating.
If the OWNER retains a weapon and attempts to defend patrons once a violent act occurs -- they're not likely to get their pants sued off --- EVEN with a no-gun sign that the stupid criminal uses as a WELCOME MAT..
No it doesn't force owners to let them in. I guarantee that most private non-corporate biz owners in Tenn HAVE A GUN at the shop.. .Maybe they feel that's the only gun REQUIRED. And MAYBE THEY are willing to take the risk because THEY will defend or attempt to defend their customers if things go wrong.
You have no idea WHAT they are thinking because the concept of shop owners having a GUN in the first place is probably offensive to you.
If they keep weapons in the shop AND bar folks from bringing in others -- the fact that they attempted to defend their customers would CERTAINLY be considered at trial...
No sir, the idea of business owners having guns in THEIR business isn't offensive to me, the idea of business owners allowing customers to carry guns isn't offensive to me.. Shit son, I own enough firearms to arm an entire town. What IS offensive to me is the government passing ANY law that tells businesses "you do this or else" the fact that this law pertains to guns is irrelevant.
THis law doesn't demand ANYTHING from the owners other than a plan to make up for denying walk-in patrons a right to self defense. Like I said -- the plan could be -- that the OWNER THEMSELVES are gonna make every attempt to take out people who IGNORE silly signs..
OR -- it will make owners think of the obvious -- which is that CRIMINALS don't obey "no gun" signs.
Yes, the law DOES force business owners to do something. It forces them to allow gun carrying OR face financial ruin if a third party acts stupidly.
You know what will happen here, insurance companies will insist on special "gun incident" coverage , raising the cost of business insurance, causing many businesses to go out of business.
Way to go you moronic gun turds .
Nope.. I gave you Option 3 and you conveniently ignored it.. Which means you're soapboxing and not debating.
If the OWNER retains a weapon and attempts to defend patrons once a violent act occurs -- they're not likely to get their pants sued off --- EVEN with a no-gun sign that the stupid criminal uses as a WELCOME MAT..
The law you champion doesn't give an option 3. Read it again. The options are "allow gun carry or risk being sued" There is no option that says "no you can't carry a gun in here, I got your back though so you can't sue me" LOL
Law abiding until they get in a fight and start shootingSo....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.
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 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.
You have that right, but you have to deal with the consequences of denying them their right to defend themselves.
I would have added on addition to the law. If the property owner provided a secure perimeter, and a checked entry point, and armed guards throughout their property, then they would absolve themselves of any liability if they denied CCW to people entering their property.
So basically they can have their gun free zone, they have to actually create one, not a "we hope there are no guns here zone".
Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.
Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.
Let's clarify it using common sense and reality, not some idiot version of "hands behind your back".Their hands aren't tied behind their back in any fashion...your logic doesn't fly.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???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.
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.
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?
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...
What about the folks that go out to eat at a restaurant that serves wine or has an attached bar? The law covers CCW license holders and they are breaking the law if they drink while armed.
