Tennessee Is Spot On

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Note to self; don't do business in Tennessee.

They should call it the Damned If You Do--Damned If You Don't State.

Lol
As if you matter lol

News Flash: Tennessee just gave you liberal faggots the bird. THEY DON'T WANT YOU THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

 

[TNHarley]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

Awesome

 

[aaronleland]

what part of tn are you moving to

North of Ashland City.

-Geaux

You will just be a couple of hours away. Good for you Geaux!

Awesome. You two can get together and blow each other.

 

[TNHarley]

what part of tn are you moving to

North of Ashland City.

-Geaux

You will just be a couple of hours away. Good for you Geaux!

Awesome. You two can get together and blow each other.

That's figuring that I could get you out from under my desk, of course

 

[Fair&Balanced]

what part of tn are you moving to

North of Ashland City.

-Geaux

You will just be a couple of hours away. Good for you Geaux!

Awesome. You two can get together and blow each other.

BAHAHAHA another liberal using homosexuality as a slur.

 

[martybegan]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that ******* works.


God damned authoritarians.

You have that right, but you have to deal with the consequences of denying them their right to defend themselves.

I would have added on addition to the law. If the property owner provided a secure perimeter, and a checked entry point, and armed guards throughout their property, then they would absolve themselves of any liability if they denied CCW to people entering their property.

So basically they can have their gun free zone, they have to actually create one, not a "we hope there are no guns here zone".

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that ******* works.


God damned authoritarians.

You have that right, but you have to deal with the consequences of denying them their right to defend themselves.

I would have added on addition to the law. If the property owner provided a secure perimeter, and a checked entry point, and armed guards throughout their property, then they would absolve themselves of any liability if they denied CCW to people entering their property.

So basically they can have their gun free zone, they have to actually create one, not a "we hope there are no guns here zone".

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

 

[martybegan]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that ******* works.


God damned authoritarians.

You have that right, but you have to deal with the consequences of denying them their right to defend themselves.

I would have added on addition to the law. If the property owner provided a secure perimeter, and a checked entry point, and armed guards throughout their property, then they would absolve themselves of any liability if they denied CCW to people entering their property.

So basically they can have their gun free zone, they have to actually create one, not a "we hope there are no guns here zone".

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that ******* works.


God damned authoritarians.

You have that right, but you have to deal with the consequences of denying them their right to defend themselves.

I would have added on addition to the law. If the property owner provided a secure perimeter, and a checked entry point, and armed guards throughout their property, then they would absolve themselves of any liability if they denied CCW to people entering their property.

So basically they can have their gun free zone, they have to actually create one, not a "we hope there are no guns here zone".

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

 

[TNHarley]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that ******* works.


God damned authoritarians.

You have that right, but you have to deal with the consequences of denying them their right to defend themselves.

I would have added on addition to the law. If the property owner provided a secure perimeter, and a checked entry point, and armed guards throughout their property, then they would absolve themselves of any liability if they denied CCW to people entering their property.

So basically they can have their gun free zone, they have to actually create one, not a "we hope there are no guns here zone".

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

I find it hard to argue that

 

[reconmark]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that ******* works.


God damned authoritarians.

You are a complete stupid ass...however on this point you are absolutely correct.

What happens when a person is shot and maimed on my property by some idiot with a gun, am I liable then also???

 

[martybegan]

This should be a national law. I just happen to be moving there tomorrow. Be back there in America by the 5th

-Geaux
_------------

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u..._campaign=COTR

In one of the most awesome pro-gun laws to come down the pike, Tennessee is blaming business owners if they disarm citizens with “gun-free zones.”
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/0...you-literally/

Quote:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
Hope other states follow suit.
__________________

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that ******* works.


God damned authoritarians.

You have that right, but you have to deal with the consequences of denying them their right to defend themselves.

I would have added on addition to the law. If the property owner provided a secure perimeter, and a checked entry point, and armed guards throughout their property, then they would absolve themselves of any liability if they denied CCW to people entering their property.

So basically they can have their gun free zone, they have to actually create one, not a "we hope there are no guns here zone".

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

 

[reconmark]

This is a stupid law.

If you own private property you have the right to tell people they can't carry guns on YOUR property. If you disagree with THEIR policy concerning THEIR property , stay off THEIR property. See how that ******* works.


God damned authoritarians.

You have that right, but you have to deal with the consequences of denying them their right to defend themselves.

I would have added on addition to the law. If the property owner provided a secure perimeter, and a checked entry point, and armed guards throughout their property, then they would absolve themselves of any liability if they denied CCW to people entering their property.

So basically they can have their gun free zone, they have to actually create one, not a "we hope there are no guns here zone".

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

 

[aaronleland]

what part of tn are you moving to

North of Ashland City.

-Geaux

You will just be a couple of hours away. Good for you Geaux!

Awesome. You two can get together and blow each other.

BAHAHAHA another liberal using homosexuality as a slur.

Don't be a ***.

 

[TNHarley]

You have that right, but you have to deal with the consequences of denying them their right to defend themselves.

I would have added on addition to the law. If the property owner provided a secure perimeter, and a checked entry point, and armed guards throughout their property, then they would absolve themselves of any liability if they denied CCW to people entering their property.

So basically they can have their gun free zone, they have to actually create one, not a "we hope there are no guns here zone".

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

LMAO dumbass

 

[martybegan]

You have that right, but you have to deal with the consequences of denying them their right to defend themselves.

I would have added on addition to the law. If the property owner provided a secure perimeter, and a checked entry point, and armed guards throughout their property, then they would absolve themselves of any liability if they denied CCW to people entering their property.

So basically they can have their gun free zone, they have to actually create one, not a "we hope there are no guns here zone".

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

If you tied your patrons hands behind their back as a condition of entry, then yes. Same as with creating a gun free zone that you don't guarantee as gun free.

 

[reconmark]

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

LMAO dumbass

What a display of your intellectual ineffectiveness....

 

[reconmark]

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

If you tied your patrons hands behind their back as a condition of entry, then yes. Same as with creating a gun free zone that you don't guarantee as gun free.

Their hands aren't tied behind their back in any fashion...your logic doesn't fly.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Give me a break, This law is an over reaction to recent events and pandering to gun owners. NOTHING else. 99.9% of businesses will never have a need for anyone on their premises to have a firearm.

Why do our politicians ALWAYS do this, meanwhile simple laws that actually fix problems can't even muster a single vote.

The law (as I would write it) would make people put their money where their mouth is. If you want a gun free zone, you have to work for it. If not, people should be compensated if they are harmed because of the rules you put in place on your property.

The law is STUPID. ULTIMATELY, YOU are the one assuming a risk when you go on someone's property. Not them.

When the owner actively sets conditions for entry, in particular a public accommodation, they should have to be liable if those conditions lead to harm.

That's stupid logic...if I run a tavern and a pissed off idiot comes in buys two beers and starts a fight, the person that got assaulted now has the right to sue me???
Think it through....

If you tied your patrons hands behind their back as a condition of entry, then yes. Same as with creating a gun free zone that you don't guarantee as gun free.

Your hands aren't tied behind your back cuz you don't get to pack your spare penis in a holster and carry it with you everywhere you go.

 

[flacaltenn]

Note to self; don't do business in Tennessee.

They should call it the Damned If You Do--Damned If You Don't State.

We don't need your tye-died neckerchiefs and worshipping crystals. You can visit tho.. Nascar or Grand Ole Opry -- your choice..

It would have been an over-reach if they had forced shop owners to recognize carry permits. But just a "victim protection" law is not that offensive to my "civil liberties" meter. The shop owner is perfectly OK to ban guns on premises. But if they denied a right to self-protection -- they are culpable in the harm..