Georgia Bill Makes Property Owners Liable for Injuries in Gun-Free Zones

[jdr8712]

Georgia Bill Makes Property Owners Liable for Injuries in Gun-Free Zones

HB 1364 makes property owners liable if a legal concealed carrier is harmed while barred from carrying for self-defense on the property.

www.breitbart.com

 

[kbaxter60]

Good. It applies to employers?

 

[lone_star_state]

Hopefully there are no exceptions for government locations.

 

[DocBeech]

Can we get this in Texas..... We need this yesterday...

 

[kbaxter60]

Article said "introduced", so probably no chance of passing?
But might make some folks think twice before trashing your 2A rights...

 

[DocBeech]

Article said "introduced", so probably no chance of passing?
But might make some folks think twice before trashing your 2A rights...

They are Republican enough in Georgia to pass it.

 

[BBL]

So since libtards are trying to force firearm owners to purchase mandatory insurance, how about we force owners of gun-free zones to buy multi-million dollar insurance to cover potential lawsuits in case anybody gets hurt/killed by gun violence? (in a "gun-free" zone)

 

[DocBeech]

So since libtards are trying to force firearm owners to purchase mandatory insurance, how about we force owners of gun-free zones to buy multi-million dollar insurance to cover potential lawsuits in case anybody gets hurt/killed by gun violence? (in a "gun-free" zone)

I might be an outlier here.... But you won't catch me without Texas Law Shield Insurance... Period... I have worked enough court cases to nope out of not having it. I think you would be a fool not to have it.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

Please explain the merits of TLS as you do sound like you have a vested interest in it.

One question: If ever you do go to court for defending yourself with a firearm and lose, will you have to pay back the all benefits provided by TLS?

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

DB,

I can't hear you...speak up please.

 

[leVieux]

<>

Our legal system should have. distinction b/t “private property” which is KEPT PRIVATE and that onto which citizens are invited or even induced to enter.

The rights of property owners who invite or induce citizens to enter their property must not take precedence over our basic Constitutional RIGHTS, as in those enumerated in our Bill of Rights.

leVieux

<>

 

[DocBeech]

Please explain the merits of TLS as you do sound like you have a vested interest in it.

One question: If ever you do go to court for defending yourself with a firearm and lose, will you have to pay back the all benefits provided by TLS?

You would need to call them and ask, but I have never heard of such a thing. It would be all over the news if it happened. My vested interest is having them on call should anything happen. They are one of the few that provide you with support up front. USCCA requires you pay up front and they reimburse you.

DB,

I can't hear you...speak up please.

Yeah, I don't live on the forums. I only check them while I am at work.

 

[ywwuyi]

Article said "introduced", so probably no chance of passing?

They are republican enough to support gun rights, but one can never be sure if the will of them to please some big property owners with vested interests outweigh this...

But I overall support this bill, in the common sense (which liberals demand!) that a 30.06 sign does NOT prevent CRIMINALS from commiting crime with a firearm, and if the police can't be at the scene within, say, 5 seconds, the only way of the people to protect themselves would be firearms carried upon them. Yet law-abiding citizens will not carry a gun into places with 30.06 sign...

In short - it doesn't make sense to use a law to restrict people who don't abide by them.

Unless, of course, if there are ways to enforce 30.06 - if at these "private places" people are subject to the same security screening as in a federal court or TSA checkpoint to ensure nobody has a gun, I'll happily not carry...

 

[leVieux]

They are republican enough to support gun rights, but one can never be sure if the will of them to please some big property owners with vested interests outweigh this...

But I overall support this bill, in the common sense (which liberals demand!) that a 30.06 sign does NOT prevent CRIMINALS from commiting crime with a firearm, and if the police can't be at the scene within, say, 5 seconds, the only way of the people to protect themselves would be firearms carried upon them. Yet law-abiding citizens will not carry a gun into places with 30.06 sign...

In short - it doesn't make sense to use a law to restrict people who don't abide by them.

<>

”it doesn't make sense to use a law to restrict people who don't abide by them.”

EXACKERLY, and AMEN !

I have had that same discussion many times with businesses in Tx & here in N.O.

leVieux

<>

 

[leVieux]

They are republican enough to support gun rights, but one can never be sure if the will of them to please some big property owners with vested interests outweigh this...

But I overall support this bill, in the common sense (which liberals demand!) that a 30.06 sign does NOT prevent CRIMINALS from commiting crime with a firearm, and if the police can't be at the scene within, say, 5 seconds, the only way of the people to protect themselves would be firearms carried upon them. Yet law-abiding citizens will not carry a gun into places with 30.06 sign...

In short - it doesn't make sense to use a law to restrict people who don't abide by them.

Unless, of course, if there are ways to enforce 30.06 - if at these "private places" people are subject to the same security screening as in a federal court or TSA checkpoint to ensure nobody has a gun, I'll happily not carry...

<>

The ONLY real solution is removal of ALL restrictions on non-criminal Citizens; as every one of the numerous restrictions has actually impeded “Public Safety”, and those with criminal intent just ignore them.

<>

 

[ywwuyi]

<>

The ONLY real solution is removal of ALL restrictions on non-criminal Citizens; as every one of the numerous restrictions has actually impeded “Public Safety”, and those with criminal intent just ignore them.

<>

Besides my concur, my point extends that in the situation where restrictions might be deemed by the People as necessary (in a court, or on a plane, say), the prerequisite which is beyond reasonable is simply to ensure non-criminals who don't abide by law get caught, not to put a dumb sign!

 

[Axxe55]

<>

The ONLY real solution is removal of ALL restrictions on non-criminal Citizens; as every one of the numerous restrictions has actually impeded “Public Safety”, and those with criminal intent just ignore them.

<>

HAVING RED SOME OF YOU REPLIES YOU SEEM TO THINK THAT A PROPERTY OWNER SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATETHE RULES AND RE QUIREMENTS OF THEIR ATRON'S OR GUESTS ON THEIR PROPERTY DON'T LIKE THE RULES THEN SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE!AND YOU SOME OTHERS HAVE SAID IGNORE THE SIGNS AND CARRY ANYWAYS

 

[DoubleDuty]

They are republican enough to support gun rights, but one can never be sure if the will of them to please some big property owners with vested interests outweigh this...

But I overall support this bill, in the common sense (which liberals demand!) that a 30.06 sign does NOT prevent CRIMINALS from commiting crime with a firearm, and if the police can't be at the scene within, say, 5 seconds, the only way of the people to protect themselves would be firearms carried upon them. Yet law-abiding citizens will not carry a gun into places with 30.06 sign...

In short - it doesn't make sense to use a law to restrict people who don't abide by them.

Unless, of course, if there are ways to enforce 30.06 - if at these "private places" people are subject to the same security screening as in a federal court or TSA checkpoint to ensure nobody has a gun, I'll happily not carry...

There are states where signs are not enforceable. You can still be asked to leave or be trespassed, which is a much better way, because concealed no one knows. That is one of the things that needs to be changed here.