Want a Gun-Free Zone? Tennessee Says That’s on You: LITERALLY

[Smoothie]

(We are now reciprocal with SC)

Ga or another state?

 

[BanjoJohn]

I wonder how many (if any) of those signs will come down?

I wonder how this will affect their liability insurance rates?

 

[Burdy]

Ga or another state?

My bad, SC now honors GA permit holders. I actually do not know if GA honors theirs yet but they have been working on it.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[BanjoJohn]

You are correct, please allow me to clarify my previous statement.
YOU can't sue if YOU are dead.

e.g. You were killed instead of just injured. How does this law help you?

The bill only mentions "injured", not "killed or injured".
Also, the bill does not state or imply that family members can sue on the behalf of the recently deceased.

Is there a "bill" that states a criminals family can sue when their thug relative gets killed while breaking the law?

When has a bill ever had anything to do with a lawsuit being filed or not?

I think you might put just a little too much faith in your government.

 

[fattboyzz]

About the fourth thread on this...

Merger ?

 

[Ken Ford]

Merger ?

Yep

 

[Captain Kaboom]

Is there a "bill" that states a criminals family can sue when their thug relative gets killed while breaking the law?

When has a bill ever had anything to do with a lawsuit being filed or not?

I think you might put just a little too much faith in your government.

Your point criminals family suing is well taken, and I not disputing that. I am just suggesting that if they are passing a bill that explicitly holds those who remove our rights accountable, should also explicitly spell out death in addition to injury, and that it includes that the families of the victim can sue rather than just the victim.

As far as when has a bill ever had anything to do with a lawsuit being filed or not: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prevents lawsuits against gun manufacturers. So I'd say that's a reasonable concern about the language of the bills and allowing lawsuits on behalf of victims. That's all I am trying to say.

 

[StuP]

I know I'm in the minority, but I believe people have a right to set the rules on their own private property. If that happens to be a business and they post a no weapons sign I'll comply, out of respect for their wishes, and take my money elsewhere.

I am not a supporter of any law that infringes on peoples rights to determine what they can and can't do on their own property.

 

[BanjoJohn]

I know I'm in the minority, but I believe people have a right to set the rules on their own private property. If that happens to be a business and they post a no weapons sign I'll comply, out of respect for their wishes, and take my money elsewhere.

I am not a supporter of any law that infringes on peoples rights to determine what they can and can't do on their own property.

Like handicap parking, and access?
Exit signs?
Meeting specific fire and health codes.

Are you saying that these things are infringing upon the rights of the property owner?

Private property that is open to the public has a different set of rules.

 

[alnen]

I know I'm in the minority, but I believe people have a right to set the rules on their own private property. If that happens to be a business and they post a no weapons sign I'll comply, out of respect for their wishes, and take my money elsewhere.

I am not a supporter of any law that infringes on peoples rights to determine what they can and can't do on their own property.

Honest question... Where does the law dictate what the property owner can or can't do on their property? I agree with your opinion, but from what I understand, this law does nothing of the sort.

If you want to prevent people from being able to defend themselves, that is certainly your choice on private property. However, when the eutopia crumbles away and people are hurt because of it, you should accept the responsibility of your actions.