# 'Gun Free' Zone Tennessee Business Liable for Disarming Concealed Carry Holders



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

'Gun Free' Zone Tennessee Business Liable for Disarming Concealed Carry Holders | Truth Revolt


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

This is good. Over 20 years ago, a co-worker suggested that something like this should become law to punish those who would willingly have us be at the mercy of evil doers. Looks like his wish came true... in Tennessee, at least.


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

Is the picture of a gun free zone from the Philippines in a story about TN relevant? Or just the crack journalism we are all use to?


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Only 49 states to go.......... :smt1099


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

I like the concept, but I'll be surprised if it survives higher court challenges. Any signage could be modified to also say, "Enter at your own risk," or a court could rule that such was 'implied.' The Constitutionality of the new law will likely be challenged by the best attorneys in the country.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

I think the law will withstand court challenges. Reason being, that if you are injured on someone else's property now, you can sue for damages. Slip and Fall lawsuits are all the rage now, with that being one of the biggest hitters in the world of Personal Injury lawsuits. Well, if you extend the same doctrine to having to disarm to enter a "gun free" zone, armed or not, ultimately you could argue that the property owner is still liable for any injuries you sustain while on their property. I think this just imposes an additional level of liability on the property owner who wants people to disarm before entering.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

If you are correct, which I think you are, then the owner of property with an owner imposed gun-free zone is probably already liable for not enforcing the rule against a person who shoots you, in which case this bill would simply add 'teeth' to it. Still, there is some room for argument, and federal courts are unpredictable, these days.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

There is certainly room for argument. Those 'slip&fall' suits assume that the store owner has control over the store's floor. Allowing CCW doesn't prevent a shooting by a BG, and banning CCW does not _demonstrably_ allow it.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

hillman said:


> There is certainly room for argument. Those 'slip&fall' suits assume that the store owner has control over the store's floor. Allowing CCW doesn't prevent a shooting by a BG, and banning CCW does not _demonstrably_ allow it.


not sure how you can prove either of those arguments unless you can show that there are empirical statistics which prove that shootings are increased or decreased depending on whether or not CCW is allowed.

It's kind of a logical conclusion, but one which is not capable of proof without demonstrated results of cause and effect. For example, if you say that stair railings make stairs safer in general, you can probably come up with historical statistics about accidents and injuries per 1000 people in situations where they used stairs with railings as compared to stairs without railings. I doubt whether those type of statistics are available for shootings in general, so I'm not really sure you can say that allowing CCW doesn't prevent a shooting. My perspective is that it "may" prevent a shooting. May not, but it also "may", which is about as proveable as saying that "it doesn't prevent a shooting". I think you could also argue that banning CCW ( as in "gun free" zones) seems to result in a higher incidence of shootings than in the general population. Now you may not be able to completely tie cause and effect together, but there would "appear" to be a strong correlation to "banning guns" and a higher level of "shootings" than in the rest of the general population. Just my $.02


----------

