jump to navigation

Tennessee enacts law enforcing liability against gun-free zones July 5, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Society, true leadership, Virtue.
trackback

The Tennessee legislature passed, and the governor signed into law, a bill that established a liability for private entities that enforced “gun free zones” on law-abiding citizens. The law became effective July 1. Those entities that ban firearms- not certain if the law applies to churches, or if any Tennessee bishops have been dumb enough to enact firearms bans from Church property – can now be sued if an attack occurs in their “no firearms allowed” premises, or even while an employee (or visitor, or whomever) is running to their car to secure a firearm to defend themselves.

This seems like a very positive development.  I read later, however, that the bill may have flaws buried deep within.  Not sure on that, I couldn’t make out what some of the critics were trying to say, but it is certain that businesses that allow citizens to defend themselves by allowing/encouraging personal firearms carriage are exempt from such liability claims.

I hope this law comes to Texas in the next legislative session (there is a lot of evidence it will), and that a clause will not be carved out for religious institutions.  It would be entertaining enough watching the steam erupt from a certain Irish prelate’s ears:

On July 1, businesses that disarm concealed carry permit holders with gun-free signage will be liable for the safety of those permit holders.

When the law, contained in SB 1736, takes effect, business owners who demand law-abiding citizens disarm themselves will assume liability for injuries they incur while on the “posted premises.” Moreover, the business owners will be liable for injuries a concealed permit holder incurs while retreating from the business to a vehicle–during an emergency–to retrieve the gun the business owner barred.

However, it ain’t all beer and skittles on the 2nd Amendment front.  Hawaii just enacted a law that would place lawful gunowners on an FBI database used to track violent criminals.  Most important to note, they will place you on this list even if you simply visit the state of Hawaii while carrying:

Hawaii’s governor signed a bill making it the first state to place its residents who own firearms in a federal criminal record database and monitor them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country, his office said……..

…….The Federal Bureau of Investigation database called “Rap Back” will allow Hawaii police to be notified when a firearm owner from the state is arrested anywhere in the United States.

Hawaii has become the first U.S. state to place firearm owners on the FBI’s Rap Back, which until now was used to monitor criminal activities by individuals under investigation…….[This reads more like an attempt to harass gun owners by placing them on a primarily criminal database – as if gun ownership were a criminal act.  Of course, criminals don’t purchase their weapons legally nor do they register them as required per law in the various states, they buy them on the black market and they are never registered.  So this has nothing to do with stopping crime or enforcing gun laws, it’s all about chilling the ability of individuals to practice their 2nd Amendment rights]

“As you can imagine, the NRA finds this one of the most extreme bills we’ve ever seen,” said Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association’s institute for legislative action.

The law could affect gun owners outside Hawaii, because the state requires visitors carrying guns to register, Hunter said.

As a result, they could be added to “Rap Back” because they arrived in the state with a gun, she said. The Hawaii attorney general’s office said a weapon-carrying visitor should be able to petition for removal from the national database after leaving the state. [“Should.”  Of course, and I “should” be a billionaire.  But I wont’ be.  Any more than they will actually remove you from the database. This is a message to CHL carriers: leave your guns at home. We in Hawaii like our tourists nice and vulnerable]

Hawaii state Senator Will Espero, a Democrat who co-authored the law and owns a gun, called it “common sense legislation that does not hurt anyone.”

The law, which takes effect immediately, allows police in Hawaii to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue to possess a gun after being arrested. [So someone wrongfully arrested and later cleared could still lose their right to carry a gun in Hawaii, depending on the attitude of local law enforcement, which, in Hawaii, is stridently anti-gun almost to a man.  That’s not a right, that’s a narrowly granted privilege.]

“It just means local police will be notified,” Espero said in a phone interview. [BS]

Hello two-tier nation, where some places are still kinda sorta free, if the feds choose to leave you alone, and others are becoming increasingly tyrannical. Makes a nice companion to the destruction of the rule of law in this country, now that Hillary is to be allowed to skate from what should be a life imprisonment from literally hundreds of felony violations regarding the mishandling of classified documents.

In other words, one rule for them, and one for us.  They get private jets, armed bodyguards (paid for at our expense), and climate soirees in swank locations.  We get tyranny, taxation, and told to shut up while we freeze to death in the dark.  No, not yet.  But it’s far from inconceivable.

Comments

1. DM - July 5, 2016

Let’s hope some more states can pass constitutional carry before Hilary can stop that too. I was a bit surprised that both Texas and Tennessee both voted down constitutional carry this year.

2. c matt - July 6, 2016

Maybe the flaw is caused by a conflict – one law saying firearms are illegal on premises where alcohol is sold or consumed, and another making them liable for having a “gun free” zone. I would think they would have written some sort of accommodation for that (something like “it is a defense to this statute that another law or statute prohibited the carrying of a firearm on the premises”, so it’s likely something else.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: