SB1037/HB0746 would remove authorization for business owners to prohibit people from bringing guns on their property—and eliminate the criminal offense for those who carry.
*****
Good, I'm glad.
At least a couple times a month I read on the Nashville news sites about how 'dangerous guns' get out on the street because the owners leave them in their vehicles which are then broken into.
Um, maybe if these folks were allowed to keep their guns on them while they conduct their daily business, y'all wouldn't have that problem, now would you?
Not too mention quite a few dead armed robbers. When I read a customer took out an armed robber I feel American Pride. Fuck em, blow their worthless brains out.
ReplyDeleteI'm torn between by undying belief in the sanctity and integrity of private property rights and the concerns over guns being left in vehicles. Personally, I am going to side with business property rights (which by the way died in 1965 - I think you know what I'm talking about) and instead promote the idea that gun owners/carriers, MUST push back against the businesses that care so little about the safety of their patrons as to BAN the lawful and natural rights of self-defense in their establishments. EVERY action that FURTHERS the right of government to tell a business what they can and cannot do, just undermines the rights that business owners MUST retain. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteIt's not so much the owner/operators ban carry by everybody, CCW license or not, but at the same time they refuse to accept strict liability for injury to disarmed CCW'ers on their premises.
DeleteNot only on their premises. If I leave my sidearm in the car, they're liable for any theft. If I leave it at home, they're liable if I'm unable to defend myself going to/from their establishment. That's why I either ignore the signs or shop elsewhere.
DeleteI'd just be happy if they removed the "intent to go armed" wording from the current law. We sorta have Constitutional Carry i Tennessee, but weirdly the same law prohibits carrying with the intent to go armed. It's created a huge grey area.
ReplyDelete"carrying with the intent to go armed." WTH does that mean?
DeleteDon't know if it will pass. TN already hates property owners' control over their own property to the degree that they'll tell them whether or not people are allowed to smoke. Own a restaurant, and a majority of your customers smoke, so you want a smoking area? Too fucking bad, you don't get to choose.
ReplyDelete--Tennessee Budd
Private property must reign supreme.
ReplyDeleteWill you allow the government to dictate what you are to approve or disapprove on your own property?
I am saying this as a supporter of all our essential liberties.
How about adding a mandatory 5 - 10 years to a sentence for a firearms crime involved that the prosecuting attorney/DA CAN'T plea down or remove from the charges and remove the ability to get a parole.
ReplyDeleteBecause that would fill up the jails and be all rayciss and shit.
DeleteMy ex brother in law was a big city prosecutor and they always used the “ gun inhancement” charge as a bargaining chip to get pleas. “ We’ll drop the gun charge if you plea to….”
DeleteI think folks commenting here need to be a bit more subtle in their reasoning. Does the business operate as a corporation/LLC/subchapter S/other government-protected entity? If yes, then they should not be able to prohibit carry. If they are a mom-and-pop shop without such protection then they should be able to prohibit firearms on their premises.
ReplyDeleteCorporations are not necessarily evil, but they are limited in the liability they carry in many ways. That government protection should come with real costs.
Kurt
" leave them in their vehicles " What, you can't lock ur full-size gat in a mini-safe? I do. I hate it, but I do. The BUG, OTOH...
ReplyDelete