How Irresponsible Is This Law?

[Skull Pilot]

If you can sue a baker for not baking a cake for a gay marriage...then if they deny you your 2nd Amendment Right, to carry a gun, they should just be sued for that.....just like the baker....a Right is a Right....and if you are injured on their property because they denied you your Right....that should be added on to everything else.....

No dummy. It doesnt say you can sue them for not allowing you to carry a gun. It says you can sue them if you get injured while they have a sign that says no guns allowed. Something that is already law.

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someones property.

You'd have to know I was carrying before you could do anything about it

That was a pointless comment.

No it's not the fact is that if a person is carrying concealed you and the person who took out his crayons to make if gun free zone sign would never know so there would be nothing you can do about it

 

[Asclepias]

If you can sue a baker for not baking a cake for a gay marriage...then if they deny you your 2nd Amendment Right, to carry a gun, they should just be sued for that.....just like the baker....a Right is a Right....and if you are injured on their property because they denied you your Right....that should be added on to everything else.....

That is a good point. Why do the customer's 1st Amendment rights override the business owner's preferences, but the business owner can deny his 2nd Amendment rights?

Because public accomodation laws dont mention guns. Its like apples and oranges and is not a good point. Also the 2nd amendment have nothing to do with the store owners liablity insurance

 

[Asclepias]

No dummy. It doesnt say you can sue them for not allowing you to carry a gun. It says you can sue them if you get injured while they have a sign that says no guns allowed. Something that is already law.

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someones property.

You'd have to know I was carrying before you could do anything about it

That was a pointless comment.

No it's not the fact is that if a person is carrying concealed you and the person who took out his crayons to make if gun free zone sign would never know so there would be nothing you can do about it

it was a pointless comment because most intelligent people already know this. You should focus better.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

Crazy, guns should not be allowed in stores or malls or any public place. Keep your guns in your home and car. This is getting to be too much. Oh yes, no abortions, because we enjoy seeing you and your child starving without medical care, and yet they want guns like the old west. I find Pubs more and more ignorant as time goes on. Get the crazies down south.

I have a concealed carry permit that gives me the right to carry my gun in public places. The fact is if I am carrying you'd never even know it

Right until you go berserk and shoot someone, or someone gives you the eye and puts his hand in his pocket and you shoot him thinking he has a gun and he doesn't.

I've been shooting since I was 8 years old. I've owned guns since I was 16, I've owned handguns since I was 21 I've had my licence to carry concealed since I was 25 I haven't "gone berserk" yet and I won't in the future. If anything I'm far more even tempered now that I was when I was 25

 

[percysunshine]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

.
Selective tort reform is a slippery slope.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someones property.

You'd have to know I was carrying before you could do anything about it

That was a pointless comment.

No it's not the fact is that if a person is carrying concealed you and the person who took out his crayons to make if gun free zone sign would never know so there would be nothing you can do about it

it was a pointless comment because most intelligent people already know this. You should focus better.

then why are you whining about gun free zone bullshit?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Personally I ignore all those gun free zone signs except for on federal or state government property where carrying a gun is actually illegal

When I am carrying concealed no one can tell so why would I not carry in a so called gun free zone at a restaurant or a movie theater for example?

Worst they can do is ask you to leave.

 

[Asclepias]

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someones property.

You'd have to know I was carrying before you could do anything about it

That was a pointless comment.

No it's not the fact is that if a person is carrying concealed you and the person who took out his crayons to make if gun free zone sign would never know so there would be nothing you can do about it

it was a pointless comment because most intelligent people already know this. You should focus better.

then why are you whining about gun free zone bullshit?

Who told you I was whining about anything? I just told you know one cares if they dont have xray eyes and can spot your gun. The point is that you were told you were not to have it on property. This law is pointless as anyone on the property is already covered by existing law.

 

[pismoe]

If you can sue a baker for not baking a cake for a gay marriage...then if they deny you your 2nd Amendment Right, to carry a gun, they should just be sued for that.....just like the baker....a Right is a Right....and if you are injured on their property because they denied you your Right....that should be added on to everything else.....

You aren't allowed to carry a gun on an airplane or into a courthouse! You gonna sue them too?

---------------------------------------------- there should be no laws denying carrying guns on airplanes or Federal property like post offices or court houses . I think those laws are rather recent laws . Just a general comment WTree !!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Personally I ignore all those gun free zone signs except for on federal or state government property where carrying a gun is actually illegal

When I am carrying concealed no one can tell so why would I not carry in a so called gun free zone at a restaurant or a movie theater for example?

Worst they can do is ask you to leave.

Partly true
In my state if my gun shows at all and someone call the cops I can get charged with disturbing the peace or some such thing and I may lose my license to carry which is why I make god damn sure my concealed carry weapon is never seen

 

[Skull Pilot]

You'd have to know I was carrying before you could do anything about it

That was a pointless comment.

No it's not the fact is that if a person is carrying concealed you and the person who took out his crayons to make if gun free zone sign would never know so there would be nothing you can do about it

it was a pointless comment because most intelligent people already know this. You should focus better.

then why are you whining about gun free zone bullshit?

Who told you I was whining about anything? I just told you know one cares if they dont have xray eyes and can spot your gun. The point is that you were told you were not to have it on property. This law is pointless as anyone on the property is already covered by existing law.

you said the law was irresponsible not pointless

I said it doesn't matter what the ******* law is

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

.
Selective tort reform is a slippery slope.

Exactly. The next step in this will be the businesses saying that if you are a gun owner and you carry a gun then they are not liable for any injuries you may receive while on their property.

 

[Asclepias]

That was a pointless comment.

No it's not the fact is that if a person is carrying concealed you and the person who took out his crayons to make if gun free zone sign would never know so there would be nothing you can do about it

it was a pointless comment because most intelligent people already know this. You should focus better.

then why are you whining about gun free zone bullshit?

Who told you I was whining about anything? I just told you know one cares if they dont have xray eyes and can spot your gun. The point is that you were told you were not to have it on property. This law is pointless as anyone on the property is already covered by existing law.

you said the law was irresponsible not pointless

I said it doesn't matter what the ******* law is

It is irresponsible and pointless. There is already a law that covers you when injured on anyones property.

 

[kwc57]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

Crazy, guns should not be allowed in stores or malls or any public place. Keep your guns in your home and car. This is getting to be too much. Oh yes, no abortions, because we enjoy seeing you and your child starving without medical care, and yet they want guns like the old west. I find Pubs more and more ignorant as time goes on. Keep the crazies down south.

So we can put you in the column of killing babies for convenience and not killing criminals who seek to do harm to others? Got it. My, how enlightened and tolerant you are!

 

[percysunshine]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

.
Selective tort reform is a slippery slope.

Exactly. The next step in this will be the businesses saying that if you are a gun owner and you carry a gun then they are not liable for any injuries you may receive while on their property.

So, should the alternative hold true? A business cannot be held civilly liable for, say, slip and falls ?

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

.
Selective tort reform is a slippery slope.

Exactly. The next step in this will be the businesses saying that if you are a gun owner and you carry a gun then they are not liable for any injuries you may receive while on their property.

So, should the alternative hold true? A business cannot be held civilly liable for, say, slip and falls ?

Thats the danger of this pointless law. Now normal things that a business owner is liable for can be questioned. Imagine the business requiring you to wear non slip shoes while in their store in order to be liable.

 

[percysunshine]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

.
Selective tort reform is a slippery slope.

Exactly. The next step in this will be the businesses saying that if you are a gun owner and you carry a gun then they are not liable for any injuries you may receive while on their property.

So, should the alternative hold true? A business cannot be held civilly liable for, say, slip and falls ?

Thats the danger of this pointless law. Now normal things that a business owner is liable for can be questioned. Imagine the business requiring you to wear non slip shoes while in their store in order to be liable.

Or a conceal carry permit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it's not the fact is that if a person is carrying concealed you and the person who took out his crayons to make if gun free zone sign would never know so there would be nothing you can do about it

it was a pointless comment because most intelligent people already know this. You should focus better.

then why are you whining about gun free zone bullshit?

Who told you I was whining about anything? I just told you know one cares if they dont have xray eyes and can spot your gun. The point is that you were told you were not to have it on property. This law is pointless as anyone on the property is already covered by existing law.

you said the law was irresponsible not pointless

I said it doesn't matter what the ******* law is

It is irresponsible and pointless. There is already a law that covers you when injured on anyones property.

This is not just about injury but being denied the right to defend yourself if the owner of the establishment doesn't

No one with a CCW permit holder that I know would think twice about entering any business with a gun free sign in the window while carrying

 

[JOSweetHeart]

You do not have to do business with a business who denies you the right to carry a gun. Likewise, find another baker.

I second this.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[WillowTree]

it was a pointless comment because most intelligent people already know this. You should focus better.

then why are you whining about gun free zone bullshit?

Who told you I was whining about anything? I just told you know one cares if they dont have xray eyes and can spot your gun. The point is that you were told you were not to have it on property. This law is pointless as anyone on the property is already covered by existing law.

you said the law was irresponsible not pointless

I said it doesn't matter what the ******* law is

It is irresponsible and pointless. There is already a law that covers you when injured on anyones property.

This is not just about injury but being denied the right to defend yourself if the owner of the establishment doesn't

No one with a CCW permit holder that I know would think twice about entering any business with a gun free sign in the window while carrying

What about the local hospital?