0
9

[–] DillHoleBagHands 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I would love to see this nation wide along with national CC permits.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] DillHoleBagHands 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Here in Indiana, the no gun zone signs do not have legal power. All that they can do is ask you to leave. If you don't, all that they can do is attempt to charge you with trespassing.

0
4

[–] bikergang_accountant 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Yes please, and also allow my next of kin to sue for wrongful death.

0
3

[–] selpai 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This simply makes sense. If you are being forbidden from defending yourself, then it should be assumed that the entity doing the forbidding is taking charge for your safety. Anything else should be considered negligent, and grounds for civil suit.

You're banning guns on your property? Fine, but you had damn well be hiring private security to compensate. Hire a private firm to take responsibility for the defense of your patrons, employees, or residents; or else when some nut-job comes in and shoots up the place, you should be considered to have negligently endangered their safety. In the case of death, perhaps that should warrant more than civil liability.

Which is exactly what it does.

the language of the bill makes clear that the concealed carrier’s obligation would be to show that they could have used a gun to prevent the injury from occurring. Beyond that, the bill rests on the fact that the business owners “assume custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person” who is on their property for lawful business.

And since this is in Missouri, where CC without a permit is the law, it means that anyone without a prior, who is injured on such a property, will have a case against the owner. At a stretch, this may not even require that the injured patron actually own a firearm.

0
2

[–] Samsquamch 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I thought this was already a thing. If you tell me I can't take steps to protect myself, you better be 100% sure the area remains free of any hostilities. If something does happen, any injuries, lawsuits, medical bills, etc should be the responsibility of the business and their gun free zone, not the victim.

0
2

[–] Datawych 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Stopgap to make pro gun people shut up about gun-free zones.

Shouldn't need to sue if wounded in one, because they shouldn't exist in the first fucking place.

0
1

[–] cmor88 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The owner of an establishment, or other non government owned property have a right to ban what they please.. Just as I have the right to not set foot on the premises.

1
0

[–] Datawych 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Yes, but are they going to individually search each person who comes into their store?

0
1

[–] Bfwilley 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Makes sense, you declare a gun free zone and then allow public access you dam well better make sure it's safe.