New Texas gun law!

[thequintessentialman]

Texas needs this Tennessee law. Effectively, if I'm reading it correctly, it places the liability for damages from death or injury on the business if the business invokes the "gun free zone" policy and a legally authorized CC patron is injured or killed as a result of not having his EDC while on premises. This could be anything from a deranged shooter to a rabid dog or wild hog in the parking lot. Write your congressman asap.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/HB2033.pdf

 

[Dawico]

I read it the same way but disagree with it being a good law.

I think a business should be able to post whatever they want with no repercussions. If they want to ban guns (or any other thing or person) have at it.

If a business is posted 30.06 and 30.07 I have the right to go somewhere else. I usually exercise that right.

It is their business so they get to make the rules. The .gov needs to interfere less, not more.

I used to agree that laws like this were a good thing until we discussed this issue here a while ago. The discussion points changed my mind.

 

[45tex]

If you want the public on your property or in your business and you restrict their Constitutional rights in favor of your private property rights then you should be responsible for damage YOU engendered by allowing people there and restriscting their rights. You can be a puplic place or a private one but when you set conditions you should be held liable for the damage you allow.
I fail to understand why running a business makes one think they are the more equal pigs on the farm

 

[Dawico]

If you want the public on your property or in your business and you restrict their Constitutional rights in favor of your private property rights then you should be responsible for damage YOU engendered by allowing people there and restriscting their rights. You can be a puplic place or a private one but when you set conditions you should be held liable for the damage you allow.
I fail to understand why running a business makes one think they are the more equal pigs on the farm

They aren't making you go in there. When you are willingly giving up your Constitutional rights to enter a place you don't have to go to then you are making your choice.

To me personal responsibly trumps all. You are choosing so you suffer the consequences.

If they want to limit their consumer base let them.

 

[easy rider]

That's big government again. A business should be able to make their own rules. Don't get me wrong, I don't like businesses that don't allow carrying when there is lawful carry, but that should be up to them and the people who go there to take the risks, just like anywhere else. If this were to happen at a hospital, would the hospital be liable if some crazed lunatic shot up the place? Or maybe a government building that doesn't allow carry? Good luck suing them. No matter what you think of Waffle House and their rules, they are not the cause of this guy doing what he did, no more then the gun was the cause.

 

[Renegade]

I am always in favor of big government when it fucks an anti-gunner. But law should only apply to LTC, since 06/07 signs have no impact on non-LTCs.

 

[Dawico]

I am always in favor of big government when it fucks an anti-gunner. But law should only apply to LTC, since 06/07 signs have no impact on non-LTCs.

I agree that screwing antis is a good thing. I also think it would get some signs removed.

But all in all I don't agree with it just on principle.

 

[thequintessentialman]

Yes and No, this is the cake baker and homosexual wedding thing again. The proponents of Jim Crow argued the same, that they should be allowed to deny service to whom or whatever they wanted because it's their business. As a private citizen, I have the right to interact with whomever I choose or choose not to but once entering the public domain as a business, am bound to provide service to whomever has the resources to pay. My opinion may be jaded since I was raised by politically active entrepreneurs who operated under the same principles of keeping business and personal opinion separate.

My thought was adding a liability waver for businesses that choose not to placard, from death or injury resulting from a legal CC holder. I see it coming when a business is going to get sued by leftists from an accidental discharge or other incident resulting in injury or death (or mental anguish knowing there may be someone with a gun in there.) Shopping centers get sued because patrons get mugged in the parking lot under a burned out security light... my contacts that sell surveillance equipment tell me an incident occurring under a nonfunctional camera is almost a guaranteed law suit.

I'm not a lawyer but do plan on staying in a Holiday Inn Express sometime this week...

 

[vmax]

They aren't making you go in there. When you are willingly giving up your Constitutional rights to enter a place you don't have to go to then you are making your choice.

To me personal responsibly trumps all. You are choosing so you suffer the consequences.

If they want to limit their consumer base let them.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

 

[TexasBrandon]

They aren't making you go in there. When you are willingly giving up your Constitutional rights to enter a place you don't have to go to then you are making your choice.

To me personal responsibly trumps all. You are choosing so you suffer the consequences.

If they want to limit their consumer base let them.

Pretty much this. No one forced you to go to the anti-gun establishment. You don't like their policy and are worried about the possibility of not defending yourself? Don't go there then. We don't need more dumb ass laws telling a property owner what he or she can or cannot do. Next up, same laws apply to your house too if you visit a friend? I can always find about 5 or 6 different alternatives if a store doesn't appeal to my standards or ideologies.

 

[majormadmax]

Funny, I had to give up numerous Constitutional rights when I joined the military (which, ironically, was to protect those same rights) and no one bitched about it as we knew that is what we signed up for when we volunteered.

I see it being the same as when I am on someone else's property. I respect their right to not want me to carry a weapon on their premises the same way they need to respect my right to go somewhere else because of that.

And the last thing we need is more government involvement and regulation in such matters.

 

[majormadmax]

Texas needs this Tennessee law. Effectively, if I'm reading it correctly, it places the liability for damages from death or injury on the business if the business invokes the "gun free zone" policy and a legally authorized CC patron is injured or killed as a result of not having his EDC while on premises. This could be anything from a deranged shooter to a rabid dog or wild hog in the parking lot. Write your congressman asap.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/HB2033.pdf

By the way, Congress doesn't make state laws, the Texas Legislature does...

http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Yes and No, this is the cake baker and homosexual wedding thing again. The proponents of Jim Crow argued the same, that they should be allowed to deny service to whom or whatever they wanted because it's their business. As a private citizen, I have the right to interact with whomever I choose or choose not to but once entering the public domain as a business, am bound to provide service to whomever has the resources to pay. My opinion may be jaded since I was raised by politically active entrepreneurs who operated under the same principles of keeping business and personal opinion separate.

My thought was adding a liability waver for businesses that choose not to placard, from death or injury resulting from a legal CC holder. I see it coming when a business is going to get sued by leftists from an accidental discharge or other incident resulting in injury or death (or mental anguish knowing there may be someone with a gun in there.) Shopping centers get sued because patrons get mugged in the parking lot under a burned out security light... my contacts that sell surveillance equipment tell me an incident occurring under a nonfunctional camera is almost a guaranteed law suit.

I'm not a lawyer but do plan on staying in a Holiday Inn Express sometime this week...

That was my first thought. In the case of the cake baker vs the Homo's the homo's won. That said what is good or the goose so for the gander. BUT we live in a world today of mixed messages and sometimes the goose has more rights than the gander.

As someone who owns a company and does business in the retail space its my view that I should have the right to make the rules of who, what, when, and how and IMO the Constitution gives me that right under right to associate clause.

Of course all of that is being applied by the govt depending upon whether its involving a minority or not and whether its anti gun or not. Bottom line if you are a baker and a homo wants you to cater if you say no the GOVT will shut your business down, but if you are a big Mega finance company and refuse to or withdrawn your business investment in a gun business its ok.

That said my first thought is this:

IF you are a small business or private business owner you reserve the right to run your business YOUR WAY, but if you are a publicly traded or you have more than 25 owners of your company then you have to abide by a "serve all the public, all the time' rules. This lets the baker off the hook and would still be in business and makes sure the MEGA Corps have to serve all the public. This also means that a small business can choose to be a gun free zone.

Being a Capitalist and a Constitutionalist is not easy in todays America. Your RIGHTS have shifted, if you do not want to sell a cake to a homo you have that Constitutional right under free association and also as a capitalist you have to make a choice between losing or not losing money. YETI has chosen NOT to sell to the NRA, anyone seeing the GOVT step in and shut down their business...how about if YETI choses NOT to sell to HOMO's?

Yes America we have got some serious problems.

 

[Southpaw]

IF you are a small business or private business owner you reserve the right to run your business YOUR WAY, but if you are a publicly traded or you have more than 25 owners of your company then you have to abide by a "serve all the public, all the time' rules. This lets the baker off the hook and would still be in business and makes sure the MEGA Corps have to serve all the public. This also means that a small business can choose to be a gun free zone.

Wouldn't the shareholders of a publicly traded company have a say before those without any interest in a company? Perhaps a better route would be to cut off any form of public money or assistan, in whatever form a company receives when they are opposed to such issues. They could still run their business the way they want only without any assistance from the public.

 

[Tcruse]

Pretty much this. No one forced you to go to the anti-gun establishment. You don't like their policy and are worried about the possibility of not defending yourself? Don't go there then. We don't need more dumb ass laws telling a property owner what he or she can or cannot do. Next up, same laws apply to your house too if you visit a friend? I can always find about 5 or 6 different alternatives if a store doesn't appeal to my standards or ideologies.

That is fine, if there is a choice. Take for example if you need internet connection and there is only one supplier that is authorized for the city that you live in.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Wouldn't the shareholders of a publicly traded company have a say before those without any interest in a company? Perhaps a better route would be to cut off any form of public money or assistan, in whatever form a company receives when they are opposed to such issues. They could still run their business the way they want only without any assistance from the public.

Sure, mostly I tossed it out as just a way to differentiate between the private smaller companies and the Mega's that are public. Which begs the question what about the MEGA privates? Would they be extended the same as a small private company????


I was baited here while back at a show we were at and a couple of gay's stopped by and in the discussion with them about every other line related to gayness: 'Yea we got married as soon as Obama got the law changed; yea the gay lifestyle is a good lifestly etc etc etc. His partner played 'good cop' with straight business talk. I think bad cop keyed in on my "Vietnam Veteran" ball cap I had on and thinking I was ultra conservative he could get a rise and they could have been trolling for lawsuits! While I may be ultra conservative and am also a capitalist...if your buying, I am selling.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

That is fine, if there is a choice. Take for example if you need internet connection and there is only one supplier that is authorized for the city that you live in.

Then (again the capitalist in me) why the hell do we only have one provider in town. There is NO technical or engineering issue to stop more than one company selling internet services, no town to small, no home to small. In fact coming in on my pipe is more than one providers of services.

Any OLD TIMERS on here remember the days of XXX Rated movie houses? I do, its was quite a controversy when they wanted to start building them. Folks went crazy, lawsuits flew, but the result was. IIRC: Could not build them close to a school or church, and they won and the fact it was open to the public and you could chose to go or not go, you were not forced to pay money and walk in. Legit argument. Today I doubt there are many around, but back in the 60's they were popping up all over the place.

 

[Dawico]

That is fine, if there is a choice. Take for example if you need internet connection and there is only one supplier that is authorized for the city that you live in.

You still don't have to go in there.

"Need" and "want" get confused sometimes.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

Unless forced by medical circumstances, (most hospitals are 30.06 posted) I avoid doing business with 30.06 businesses.

I can almost always find an alternative business that isn't 30.06 posted and that's where I do business.

 

[BRD@66]