proposed Georgia House Bill# 1364.... Concerning property owners responsible for damages to victims of crimes that occured on Their property that they had posted as "GUN FREE" because IF the victim was not able to properly defend themselves where otherwise if they had been allowed to legally carry a legal ccw... Property owners could be responsible repaying victims for cost of damages incurred because of the "GUN FREE" posting...................... Sounds good to me.. If passed then maybe other states would be so lucky to do the same...... drill sgt.

Here's how it reads - "Summary
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 51 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions regarding liability of owners and occupiers of land, so as to provide that a person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls a property and prohibits a lawful weapons carrier from possessing a concealed weapon on such property shall assume absolute custodial responsibility for the safety of such lawful weapons carrier from certain threats; to provide for definitions; to provide for related matters; to provide for applicability; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
"

It still has to go through Judiciary.
I hope it gets signed but I see our leftist shits finding a way to ties this up in a lower court.

How would that affect the school system? I would assume the municipality would be responsible for paying out to any victims of a violent encounter that couldn’t defend themselves or others in such cases.

Schools will be exempt.
This is private businesses that will be liable.

So, as usual, government exempts itself from the laws it enacts?

I remember when Morton Grove, IL passed a handgun ban for the entire village, it specifically exempted village officials, the logic being that the law exposed them to special threats from the citizenry.

Nothing changes.

As to the new law being proposed, this is also a case of history repeating itself, but I'm hoping that this time it passes. We can't let the craziness continue.

I hope that no one who claims to believe in individual rights supports such a bill. How is this different than any other governmental overreach and interference with the rights of businesses to operate the way they want? What’s next: a store employee uses the “wrong” pronoun when referring to a customer, and the customer can sue, or perhaps even bring criminal charges because of the humiliation and anguish they suffer?

If you feel bound to observe something like a “gun free” sign, then don’t go there. Do I agree with them? No, but there are many things I do not agree with.

And as for the “They’re already subject to many other rules and laws that dictate how they operate,” I think it was in third grade or so that I first heard that two wrongs don’t make a right.

But even if it were a good, legitimate idea, how would businesses be protected from fraudulent claims that someone didn’t have a gun because of the sign? As we know even from discussions here, not everyone with a permit carries all the time. If I’m victimized and couldn’t defend myself not because I obeyed a sign but because I’m lazy and clueless, how could the business defend itself against the false claim that it was the sign that prevented me from having a gun?

Yeah, I see both sides of this.

I personally prefer the approach that some states take that “No guns” signs do not have the force of law. Instead, a person discovered to be carrying there can be asked to leave and cited for trespass if they don’t. It is almost always preferable to take one’s business elsewhere, to a business not hoplophobic, but it is nice to have the option.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
Schools will be exempt.
This is private businesses that will be liable.

I suspect the Post Office and Airports will also be exempt because the gun restrictions are Federal law.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I hope that no one who claims to believe in individual rights supports such a bill. How is this different than any other governmental overreach and interference with the rights of businesses to operate the way they want?

You're 100% correct. Either you're for property rights, or you're not.

I'm with sigfreund on this one.

This is a baited hook.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I hope that no one who claims to believe in individual rights supports such a bill.

"No snow boots allowed" in front of an outdoor winter market (perhaps selling Christmas trees) would be analogous. Or better yet, the same sign at the base area of a ski resort, because ski thieves like quick getaways and don't wear ski boots, so it is a crime prevention measure. But the business takes no preventive measures to assure no snow or ice are present.

And then someone slips and falls on slippery snow. Did the business make it impossible for the customer to take normal precautions against injury?

Businesses are not the same as private homes. They invite the public in, so a business is held to a higher level of responsibility. Businesses have stricter building codes than private home for the same reason.

While it is not required I patronize the hardware store in my town were they to post no-guns, if the nearest non-restrictive hardware store is 150 miles away then it becomes difficult to say I have a choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Did the business make it impossible for the customer to take normal precautions against injury?

.

This is what I’ve been trying to say for two days.

quote:

I'm with sigfreund on this one.

Ditto

quote:

Did the business make it impossible for the customer to take normal precautions against injury?

Absolutely not. You're under no obligation to be at the business, so they didn't make anything "impossible" for you.

Most businesses this would pertain to do not own the property, but rather lease the property, which 'may' be an important distinction when the conversation is framed as a 'property rights' issue. They also, as operators of a public business, have some liability for the safety of that public, so denying one a means of safety/self-defense protection is also a distinction that 'may' apply here.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Did the business make it impossible for the customer to take normal precautions against injury?

Absolutely not. You're under no obligation to be at the business, so they didn't make anything "impossible" for you.

I get that position, but then that raises some questions.

Isn't a business obligated to provide a safe environment for customers, at least to a reasonable extent? To the extent they cannot assure safety, aren't they obligated to allow the public (which they invite in) to take reasonable measures for their own safety?

Don't we, as free citizens, have the right to engage in normal commerce? Isn't that why businesses which invite the public in have restrictions on them so that we can all engage in normal life? Our rights as individuals are superior to the privileges of a business, or else businesses could discriminate on anything.

If a large number of businesses prohibit guns, at what point is it a de facto impossibility to engage in normal society? At that point, no I do not have a choice. If the nearest hardware store allowing lawful firearms is 150 miles away, no it is not reasonable to claim I have an alternative. Even more so when we consider grocery stores or pharmacies or other high priority necessities.

Didn't mask mandates or "vaccine" cards make it virtually impossible to engage in normal life? I could have driven to another state to grocery shop. I could have driven across country instead of flying, and slept in my car rather than use hotels. It wasn't "impossible" for me to stay alive, but those restrictions greatly harmed my Pursuit of Happiness.

If a business has no liability for my safety when they prohibit me taking normal precautions, then why do they have any liability at all for any risks? My example was slippery snow and prohibiting me wearing suitable footwear. A business has some liability to mitigate snow and ice outside, but the patron is also responsible to take reasonable care. I would likely not win a lawsuit if I wore slick soled shoes and fell on snow at the base area of the ski resort. Would I have a case if the resort prohibited all but slick soled shoes? I think so. How is that any different than prohibiting me from carrying a firearm for self defense?

Keep in mind that the vast majority of businesses which post No-Guns signs do it specifically to avoid legal liability! It is a patently UNreasonable tactic, yet it is legal. Hey, some drugged out psychopath came in and shot people, but since the business prohibited guns they aren't liable. They didn't have to take any actual precautions to protect their customers, like metal detectors or pat downs at the entry. They just post a sign which says in effect "violent crimes prohibited here - and everyone inside is defenseless".

quote:

Isn't a business obligated to provide a safe environment for customers, at least to a reasonable extent?

They are likely obligated to address known risks. Using your snow example, the business should know that the snow is slippery and take precautions to remove it. Using your bad guy example, if they know a bad guy is there they should call the police to report him. Absent that knowledge, they have no obligations.

quote:

Don't we, as free citizens, have the right to engage in normal commerce?

Sure. But you don't have the right to dictate the private property rights of others.

quote:

Our rights as individuals are superior to the privileges of a business,

I think you're confused. Businesses are owned by individuals. Those property rights of those individuals trump your rights as a guest on that property.

quote:

If a large number of businesses prohibit guns,

Not much different than a large number of businesses prohibiting barefoot customers, soliciting on their property, smoking inside, eating/drinking, or any other number of things.

quote:

How is that any different than prohibiting me from carrying a firearm for self defense?

How does that sign stop you from doing that? Even if the business installed metal detectors and patted you down at the door (and I've owned a business that's done that, and work in other businesses that also do that), my answer would still be the same.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

They are likely obligated to address known risks. Using your snow example, the business should know that the snow is slippery and take precautions to remove it. Using your bad guy example, if they know a bad guy is there they should call the police to report him. Absent that knowledge, they have no obligations.

Sure. But you don't have the right to dictate the private property rights of others.

I think you're confused. Businesses are owned by individuals. Those property rights of those individuals trump your rights as a guest on that property.

Not much different than a large number of businesses prohibiting barefoot customers, soliciting on their property, smoking inside, eating/drinking, or any other number of things.

How does that sign stop you from doing that? Even if the business installed metal detectors and patted you down at the door (and I've owned a business that's done that, and work in other businesses that also do that), my answer would still be the same.

1) Violence on the premises is a known risk. Not a big risk, probably in the same ballpark as fire and probably more likely than some other risks which the business takes action to prevent or mitigate (and are generally required to put in place). Yet the business takes zero, and I mean Z E R O efforts to stop either an employee or outsider from committing violence except, perhaps, if they have an armed guard on premises. And calling the police isn't mitigation it is clean up after the fact.

2) Businesses which invite the public in are not the same as a private home. They do fall under the heading of "public accommodation" and are held to a different standard. You can exclude anyone from your home for any reason. Businesses cannot exclude a person without a legal and articulable reason (health, safety, disruption, etc).

3) A business may be owned by people, but are inviting the public in. Prohibiting bare feet is a health issue (and potential safety issue to the barefoot person), soliciting is disruptive to the business, smoking is a health hazard, eating/drinking are health and safety issues. There is no explanation for banning guns other than for the owner to offload all risk and liability to the person they prohibited from being armed.

4) Not sure what you mean there. I do carry even where signposted in this state as it is not illegal, though I do try to spend my money elsewhere. However, how is a business not accepting responsibility for customers' safety against violence if they ban guns without screening who enters the premises? Just as the ski resort which requires me to wear slippery shoes is implying they are going to ensure there's no snow or ice for me to slip on. If they do nothing to remove snow and ice, how are they not liable for my slip and fall injury? Instead, they make no such assurance of no snow, and they leave it up to me to take reasonable measures such as wearing suitable winter footwear and being alert to potential snowy conditions.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
I'm with sigfreund on this one.

Me too, with sigfreund and others.
The Libertarian streak in me says the business owners should have a right to run their business as they see fit and I can choose between patronizing them or not.
Also in Georgia, a no gun sign doesn’t have any legal obligation, it’s merely a suggestion as I understand it. A business owner that were to find someone in possession can ask you to leave and only if you don’t, ask police to trespass you.

This is an ill advised attempt to enhance rights that missed the mark.

quote:

1) Violence on the premises is a known risk. Not a big risk,

So is a meteor strike. How much money should a business invest to protect you from meteors?

quote:

Businesses cannot exclude a person without a legal and articulable reason (health, safety, disruption, etc).

Not true at all. Business have right to refuse service to anybody except those specifically protected by anti-discrimination laws.

They can exclude you because they don't like the color of your shirt, because you don't speak Swahili, you pulled up in a Tesla, or in this case because you're carrying a gun.

quote:

A business may be owned by people, but are inviting the public in.

And they can ask that public to leave, or trespass those people for just about any reason they wish (or no reason at all).

quote:

However, how is a business not accepting responsibility for customers' safety against violence

Unless you're at ACME Bodyguard Services Inc., the business has zero responsibility to protect you from random acts of violence (absent known threats). What is the gas station doing to protect you from bee stings? What is Walmart doing to protect you from scoliosis? What is Home Depot doing to protect you from getting into a car accident in their parking lot?

There's only one person responsible for you , and that's you.