Firearm Legislation? This is how it's done in a "free state"

[allen-1]

Concealed carriers have long said if property owners don’t allow them to carry on their property, then those property owners should be held liable if people are attacked on it and can’t protect themselves. After all, it only makes sense, as it is the owners posting “No Guns” signs on their property that are leaving gun owners defenseless in areas where criminals have no qualms about having a gun.

Now, a measure introduced in the Georgia legislature would put that onus on property owners who restrict lawful residents from carrying on their property. The measure, House Bill 1364, was introduced by Republican state Rep. Martin Momtahan.

“All we want to make sure is, if you’re in the store or anywhere and it has a ‘no gun’ sign, then that store needs to understand they have absolute custodial care of that person,” Rep. Momtahan said of the measure.
According to the text of the legislation, “Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying his or her weapon, including a concealed weapon, and who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, or incurs economic loss or expense, property damage, or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct of another person occurring on property where the lawful possession of weapons is prohibited, shall have a cause of action against the person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls such property and causes such prohibition to occur. In addition to damages, the lawful weapons carrier shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.

Source: GA: Bill Would Make Property Owners Liable For Injuries In Gun-Free Zones - The Truth About Guns

I'm wondering if this will become law.

 

[TJ4]

Interesting, and I’m sure the drafters’ hearts were in the right place, but it just amounts to bringing more government into people’s lives, and just opens up business owners to more lawsuits by personal injury attorneys. The way this law is written, a person could scratch your car’s paint or commit some other act that you wouldn’t have a reason for a good shoot for, and the property owner would still be liable for the damage done by that person. I can already see the ambulance chasers suing business owners because someone in a store yelled loudly and caused ptsd for their client and they are claiming it as an “other compensable loss” under this proposed law.

 

[granitestater]

Concealed carriers have long said if property owners don’t allow them to carry on their property, then those property owners should be held liable if people are attacked on it and can’t protect themselves. After all, it only makes sense, as it is the owners posting “No Guns” signs on their property that are leaving gun owners defenseless in areas where criminals have no qualms about having a gun.

Now, a measure introduced in the Georgia legislature would put that onus on property owners who restrict lawful residents from carrying on their property. The measure, House Bill 1364, was introduced by Republican state Rep. Martin Momtahan.

“All we want to make sure is, if you’re in the store or anywhere and it has a ‘no gun’ sign, then that store needs to understand they have absolute custodial care of that person,” Rep. Momtahan said of the measure.
According to the text of the legislation, “Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying his or her weapon, including a concealed weapon, and who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, or incurs economic loss or expense, property damage, or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct of another person occurring on property where the lawful possession of weapons is prohibited, shall have a cause of action against the person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls such property and causes such prohibition to occur. In addition to damages, the lawful weapons carrier shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.

Source: GA: Bill Would Make Property Owners Liable For Injuries In Gun-Free Zones - The Truth About Guns

I'm wondering if this will become law.

Actually all of the New England states are more free than Georgia with respect to carry. Most of the South allows business owners to put up no guns allowed signs and those who ignore them risk arrest and criminal prosecution. This is the same south that at one time, not long ago, allowed business to keep out black people. This is discrimination plain and simple. Carrying a gun is a constitutional right and a business owner should not be able to create a crime. Now, for all those who will claim its private property. It is and is not at the same time. It is privately owned but open to the public. Someones residence is NOT open to the public. A residence is truly private. A business is not. For all those who say boycott. Boycotts don't work when it involves essential items like groceries or automotive repair or medical care.

Interesting, and I’m sure the drafters’ hearts were in the right place, but it just amounts to bringing more government into people’s lives, and just opens up business owners to more lawsuits by personal injury attorneys. The way this law is written, a person could scratch your car’s paint or commit some other act that you wouldn’t have a reason for a good shoot for, and the property owner would still be liable for the damage done by that person. I can already see the ambulance chasers suing business owners because someone in a store yelled loudly and caused ptsd for their client and they are claiming it as an “other compensable loss” under this proposed law.

You are correct! Why insert .gov into people lives?

A better sollution is a repeal of all those laws that allow signage and allow businesses to create crimes.

This is especially prevalent in Texas. I was there a few months back and shocked at the ammount of signs in so called free state of Texas.

 

[MisterHappy]

The problem is that people write laws to fix a problem, then modify them, or write more laws, to fix what went wrong, was unforseen, or no longer makes sense. This is how you have a law (as cited above) where a person's credit card is hacked at Joe's General Store can sue the store, as they had to leave their carry piece in the car.

Honestly, it seems to me that expiration dates should be on all laws, like the Federal AWB....after 10 years, it was shown to be poinless, and it "sunsetted."

If there has been no reduction in zoobow attacks, let the prohibition drop, or at least be brought up for consideration.

 

[not new guy]

Actually all of the New England states are more free than Georgia with respect to carry. Most of the South allows business owners to put up no guns allowed signs and those who ignore them risk arrest and criminal prosecution. This is the same south that at one time, not long ago, allowed business to keep out black people. This is discrimination plain and simple. Carrying a gun is a constitutional right and a business owner should not be able to create a crime. Now, for all those who will claim its private property. It is and is not at the same time. It is privately owned but open to the public. Someones residence is NOT open to the public. A residence is truly private. A business is not. For all those who say boycott. Boycotts don't work when it involves essential items like groceries or automotive repair or medical care.



You are correct! Why insert .gov into people lives?

A better sollution is a repeal of all those laws that allow signage and allow businesses to create crimes.

This is especially prevalent in Texas. I was there a few months back and shocked at the ammount of signs in so called free state of Texas.

Texas is wild. I was looking into the requirements for our offices there and each entrance needs to have massive signs with like 1” letters on them, and there are 3 different statutes in play for different types of guns and license situations so you end up with the door surrounded/covered by legalese. So stupid.

 

[Broc]

Concealed carriers have long said if property owners don’t allow them to carry on their property, then those property owners should be held liable if people are attacked on it and can’t protect themselves. After all, it only makes sense, as it is the owners posting “No Guns” signs on their property that are leaving gun owners defenseless in areas where criminals have no qualms about having a gun.

Now, a measure introduced in the Georgia legislature would put that onus on property owners who restrict lawful residents from carrying on their property. The measure, House Bill 1364, was introduced by Republican state Rep. Martin Momtahan.

“All we want to make sure is, if you’re in the store or anywhere and it has a ‘no gun’ sign, then that store needs to understand they have absolute custodial care of that person,” Rep. Momtahan said of the measure.
According to the text of the legislation, “Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying his or her weapon, including a concealed weapon, and who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, or incurs economic loss or expense, property damage, or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct of another person occurring on property where the lawful possession of weapons is prohibited, shall have a cause of action against the person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls such property and causes such prohibition to occur. In addition to damages, the lawful weapons carrier shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.

Source: GA: Bill Would Make Property Owners Liable For Injuries In Gun-Free Zones - The Truth About Guns

I'm wondering if this will become law.

There is nothing "freedom" about this.

"Freedom" would be a bill saying that property owners can post signs not wanting firearms, but if someone has a concealed gun, they won't get arrested. A lot like MA. In that aspect, MA is pretty good. Your employer can say "NO GUNS" but you can have a gun and not be breaking the law.

 

[Broc]

Texas is wild. I was looking into the requirements for our offices there and each entrance needs to have massive signs with like 1” letters on them, and there are 3 different statutes in play for different types of guns and license situations so you end up with the door surrounded/covered by legalese. So stupid.

Don't forget, many of those States were RED AS F*CK at one point. I am guessing a lot of this junk is a remnant of those times (guessing).

It is amazing the change we went through in 38 years.

 

[allen-1]

There is nothing "freedom" about this.

"Freedom" would be a bill saying that property owners can post signs not wanting firearms, but if someone has a concealed gun, they won't get arrested. A lot like MA. In that aspect, MA is pretty good. Your employer can say "NO GUNS" but you can have a gun and not be breaking the law.

This is leverage. Stores faced with the potential liability for not allowing people to carry firearms on their premises will re-consider their position.

I think/hope.

 

[Broc]

This is leverage. Stores faced with the potential liability for not allowing people to carry firearms on their premises will re-consider their position.

I think/hope.

Again, not "freedom" when the State is telling people what to do.

I am replying based on your thread title:

Firearm Legislation? This is how it's done in a "free state"​

 

[KBCraig]

Texas is wild. I was looking into the requirements for our offices there and each entrance needs to have massive signs with like 1” letters on them, and there are 3 different statutes in play for different types of guns and license situations so you end up with the door surrounded/covered by legalese. So stupid.

You don't have to put up those signs. You could choose to not ban guns, instead.

 

[Broc]

Texas is wild. I was looking into the requirements for our offices there and each entrance needs to have massive signs with like 1” letters on them, and there are 3 different statutes in play for different types of guns and license situations so you end up with the door surrounded/covered by legalese. So stupid.

Pro tip: you put the wrong sign on purpose so people can still carry while making the corporate lords happy.

 

[Jenska22]

of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers

 

[Kevin_NH]

Texas is wild. I was looking into the requirements for our offices there and each entrance needs to have massive signs with like 1” letters on them, and there are 3 different statutes in play for different types of guns and license situations so you end up with the door surrounded/covered by legalese. So stupid.

That's because Texas has "binding signage". If posting a sign is sufficient to bring criminal charges, that sign damn well better be impossible to miss.

 

[APFSDS]

NC was/is like that. They have been "shall issue" forever, but literally every business, park, etc. has "NO GUNS" signs up, which are binding.