Possible Georgia bill affecting private prohibition

[Doug64]

I have no idea how likely this is to become law, but this Georgia bill is an interesting take on the prohibition of carrying guns on private property.

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.

What it essentially comes down to is that you are free as a private citizen to prohibit lawful gun carriers from carrying on your property, both personal and commercial, but if you do you assume responsibility for their safety. If they are injured in a situation where they might have been able to defend themselves if armed, they are legally entitled to hit you up for damages.

For me personally, it sounds like a great idea for businesses, but I'm not so enthusiastic about private citizens on noncommercial property like a home.

 

[Ishm]

Every time you think we might have reached the limits of gun insanity, along comes another increased level of gun lobby insanity.

The answer to this one is actually real simple for the sane and logical. - Here is my property. Here are my rules if you want to enter my property. If you aren't happy with my rules, don't enter my property. This follows the general intent of the constitution.

Instead, the gun lobby wants to effectively threaten people that they can't make rules governing their own property because the gun lobby think they have to be in control. This has become standard right wing doctrine now. Talk about 'big government'!!

 

[Doug64]

The answer to this one is actually real simple for the sane and logical. - Here is my property. Here are my rules if you want to enter my property. If you aren't happy with my rules, don't enter my property. This follows the general intent of the constitution.

Yup, and under this proposed law you are perfectly free to prohibit people from being armed on your property, it is simply that by doing so you assume responsibility for their safety. Should you be held responsible for the safety of people who get in your car?

Mind, I do think this is too much for noncommercial private property, but for most businesses? Not so much.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

If you are so scared of the world you cannot leave your home without a gun, hide under your bed, *****.

 

[iguanaman]

I have no idea how likely this is to become law, but this Georgia bill is an interesting take on the prohibition of carrying guns on private property.



What it essentially comes down to is that you are free as a private citizen to prohibit lawful gun carriers from carrying on your property, both personal and commercial, but if you do you assume responsibility for their safety. If they are injured in a situation where they might have been able to defend themselves if armed, they are legally entitled to hit you up for damages.

For me personally, it sounds like a great idea for businesses, but I'm not so enthusiastic about private citizens on noncommercial property like a home.

And why exactly would this overstep of big Govt bullies be good for businesses? The courts decide who has responsibility in a shooting at a home or business. If a plaintiff can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not having his gun is what caused the shooting he can sue. Personally I think it reduces the violence when more people are unarmed anywhere you may be. Who knows how many others in the bar would have been caught in the crossfire?

 

[Ishm]

Yup, and under this proposed law you are perfectly free to prohibit people from being armed on your property, it is simply that by doing so you assume responsibility for their safety. Should you be held responsible for the safety of people who get in your car?

Mind, I do think this is too much for noncommercial private property, but for most businesses? Not so much.

So by your argument, if I have a guest in my car and they get hurt when a red light runner hits us, it's my responsibility because they are in my honda civic instead of the F350 tank they normally drive!!! What if they are in my home when a tornado hits and I don't have a storm shelter when they have one at their home. Are their injuries now my responsibility as well? Yet if you leave your gun lying around on your car seat etc and it gets stolen, then used to shoot me in a car jacking 1 minute later, you bear no responsibility at all. When I talked about the insanity of the gun lobby I wasn't joking. And yes I own multiple firearms and guns don't scare me at all. It's the people holding them that scare me!!

 

[Ug make hammer]

Yup, and under this proposed law you are perfectly free to prohibit people from being armed on your property, it is simply that by doing so you assume responsibility for their safety. Should you be held responsible for the safety of people who get in your car?

False analogy. Try "should a bus company be responsible for harm done by one passenger to another?"

Mind, I do think this is too much for noncommercial private property, but for most businesses? Not so much.

 

[Doug64]

If a plaintiff can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not having his gun is what caused the shooting he can sue.

Here's the actual language of the bill:

(c)(1) Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying his or her weapon, including a concealed weapon, and who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, or incurs economic loss or expense, property damage, or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct of another person occurring on property where the lawful possession of weapons is prohibited, shall have a cause of action against the person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls such property and causes such prohibition to occur. In addition to damages, the lawful weapons carrier shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.

(2) To prevail in an action brought under this subsection, the plaintiff shall show by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(A) The plaintiff was a lawful weapons carrier at the time of the incident giving rise to the action;

(B) The plaintiff was prohibited from carrying a weapon, including a concealed weapon, on the property where the incident occurred by the person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls such property; and

(C) The prohibition provided for in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph was not required by state or federal law but was imposed at the discretion of the defendant.

I think this language is a bit too broad. For one, as I've said, I don't think this should apply to noncommercial property. Second, I don't see anything in there that requires the injury to be possibly preventable if the injured party was armed. Note that it requires a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. I also would add that the prohibiter cannot be charged if they had acted to provide that protection themselves, such as effective private security or arming themselves and their employees.

So by your argument, if I have a guest in my car and they get hurt when a red light runner hits us, it's my responsibility because they are in my honda civic instead of the F350 tank they normally drive!!!

If the injury was due to your own negligence, certainly. Say, not properly maintaining seat belts or airbags (if the car isn't a classic that doesn't have them).

False analogy. Try "should a bus company be responsible for harm done by one passenger to another?"

That's not a bad one, I was thinking of taxi drivers myself. But it's a simple question--if you require customers to disarm in order to do business with you, should you assume responsibility for their safety? So in the case of your example, if the bus company in question left the person assaulted helpless to effectively defend themselves and didn't provide any defense itself, then yes, it should be held accountable for failing to do so. If you insist your customers be defenseless, then you should be responsible for that defense.

 

[iguanaman]

Here's the actual language of the bill:


I think this language is a bit too broad. For one, as I've said, I don't think this should apply to noncommercial property. Second, I don't see anything in there that requires the injury to be possibly preventable if the injured party was armed. Note that it requires a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. I also would add that the prohibiter cannot be charged if they had acted to provide that protection themselves, such as effective private security or arming themselves and their employees.


If the injury was due to your own negligence, certainly. Say, not properly maintaining seat belts or airbags (if the car isn't a classic that doesn't have them).


That's not a bad one, I was thinking of taxi drivers myself. But it's a simple question--if you require customers to disarm in order to do business with you, should you assume responsibility for their safety? So in the case of your example, if the bus company in question left the person assaulted helpless to effectively defend themselves and didn't provide any defense itself, then yes, it should be held accountable for failing to do so. If you insist your customers be defenseless, then you should be responsible for that defense.

We already have a method of determining responsibility and this law is written to intimidate private businesses to allow their premises to become shooting galleries. It is obscene legislation. How about a law that says if you are carrying during a shooting and don't step up and save the day you will be made responsible for the incident. How's that sound?

 

[Ishm]

Here's the actual language of the bill:


I think this language is a bit too broad. For one, as I've said, I don't think this should apply to noncommercial property. Second, I don't see anything in there that requires the injury to be possibly preventable if the injured party was armed. Note that it requires a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. I also would add that the prohibiter cannot be charged if they had acted to provide that protection themselves, such as effective private security or arming themselves and their employees.

The actual law language is awful, and probably unconstitutional.

If the injury was due to your own negligence, certainly. Say, not properly maintaining seat belts or airbags (if the car isn't a classic that doesn't have them).

I said if I was hit by a red light runner. Not anything that I was responsible for. You are deliberately dodging the question because answering shows how fundamentally insane the proposed law is. Let's try again. A friend and I are going on a trip. He has a cheap to run Prius. and I have a tank of an F350. He talks me into going in his car because it will use less gas than my truck. I freely make the decision to enter his car. On the trip we get hit by a speeding vehicle on the wrong side of the road. The accident is 100% the other vehicles fault. It is determined that if we had been in my F350 we would not have been hurt. There are zero issues with my friends car. Can I now sue my friend for all my harm because the other driver has no money or insurance? I would have been fine if I was travelling in my normal vehicle, so it has to be my friends fault right?

That's not a bad one, I was thinking of taxi drivers myself. But it's a simple question--if you require customers to disarm in order to do business with you, should you assume responsibility for their safety? So in the case of your example, if the bus company in question left the person assaulted helpless to effectively defend themselves and didn't provide any defense itself, then yes, it should be held accountable for failing to do so. If you insist your customers be defenseless, then you should be responsible for that defense.

 

[iguanaman]

The actual law language is awful, and probably unconstitutional.

I said if I was hit by a red light runner. Not anything that I was responsible for. You are deliberately dodging the question because answering shows how fundamentally insane the proposed law is. Let's try again. A friend and I are going on a trip. He has a cheap to run Prius. and I have a tank of an F350. He talks me into going in his car because it will use less gas than my truck. I freely make the decision to enter his car. On the trip we get hit by a speeding vehicle on the wrong side of the road. The accident is 100% the other vehicles fault. It is determined that if we had been in my F350 we would not have been hurt. There are zero issues with my friends car. Can I now sue my friend for all my harm because the other driver has no money or insurance? I would have been fine if I was travelling in my normal vehicle, so it has to be my friends fault right?

I think the law should be the reverse. If you are carrying during a shooting and don't step up and save the day you will be made responsible for the incident. How's that sound? It is at least no more insane that the OP.

 

[Grand Mal]

I have no idea how likely this is to become law, but this Georgia bill is an interesting take on the prohibition of carrying guns on private property.



What it essentially comes down to is that you are free as a private citizen to prohibit lawful gun carriers from carrying on your property, both personal and commercial, but if you do you assume responsibility for their safety. If they are injured in a situation where they might have been able to defend themselves if armed, they are legally entitled to hit you up for damages.

For me personally, it sounds like a great idea for businesses, but I'm not so enthusiastic about private citizens on noncommercial property like a home.

What a stupid concept. If the business owner says you can't carry a gun on their property it's entirely your decision what you do with that.

 

[zsu2357]

Only reason I checked I would think about it is because some lib-tard would know doubt wind off a 30 rnd. mag. at some noise.

 

[JasperL]

Yup, and under this proposed law you are perfectly free to prohibit people from being armed on your property, it is simply that by doing so you assume responsibility for their safety. Should you be held responsible for the safety of people who get in your car?

If I ride in your car, and some idiot runs the red light, drunk, and slams into your car head on, killing me, it's YOUR fault, and YOU should pay out damages for wrongful death to my family? You assumed responsibility for my safety for your own actions AND THE ACTIONS OF EVERY OTHER DRIVER ON THE ROAD?!

Mind, I do think this is too much for noncommercial private property, but for most businesses? Not so much.

It's ridiculous. If you feel unsafe without your trusty Glock in a store, shop elsewhere. It's not that damn hard.

What the proposal really does is attempt to punish business owners who don't want their employees and all their customers armed. Well, it's likely they don't want everyone armed with a Glock or maybe an AR slung over their shoulder because that introduces a bunch of new risks, such as accidental discharges, for starters, or any one of your employees or customers panics, breaks, goes nuts, and starts shooting up the place, kills, maybe, maybe, a bad guy and 2 or 3 bystanders, and the business is sued for that. If the owner doesn't have insurance, then you'll bankrupt him, and good luck finding policies that cover all that, when you invited everyone to bring their AR to work every day.

So if the owner prohibits an AR at every desk, then you make him liable for the actions of the business, the employees, and any random customer or robber or crazy former fired employee who decides a mass shooting is how he'd like to go out. Again, that will require maybe armed guards or a helluva big liability insurance policy to cover random acts. It's nuts at every level, anyone thinking about it sanely for 1 solid minute can point out the problems, which means it's likely to pass some batcrap crazy southern legislature!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

 

[Fearandloathing]

I have no idea how likely this is to become law, but this Georgia bill is an interesting take on the prohibition of carrying guns on private property.



What it essentially comes down to is that you are free as a private citizen to prohibit lawful gun carriers from carrying on your property, both personal and commercial, but if you do you assume responsibility for their safety. If they are injured in a situation where they might have been able to defend themselves if armed, they are legally entitled to hit you up for damages.

For me personally, it sounds like a great idea for businesses, but I'm not so enthusiastic about private citizens on noncommercial property like a home.

Wow


For the sake of a misinterpretation of a 250 year old sentence we have to go through this?

The more I learn about guns and gun owners the more grateful I am to be in Canada.

 

[JasperL]

Here's the actual language of the bill:


I think this language is a bit too broad. For one, as I've said, I don't think this should apply to noncommercial property. Second, I don't see anything in there that requires the injury to be possibly preventable if the injured party was armed. Note that it requires a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. I also would add that the prohibiter cannot be charged if they had acted to provide that protection themselves, such as effective private security or arming themselves and their employees.

Great, so if Starbucks arms all its cashiers, and some guy comes in to rob it of $400 in cash, and the cashier decides he's John Wayne and tries to kill the robber and hits a mom with young kids standing next to him, now what? The employer is liable for that.

What this would do is make a lot of insurers really busy, drive up costs, all because you want to carry a Glock to get your coffee and the owner decided his business works best with a no-guns-allowed policy. If you don't like that policy, make your own coffee at home.

If the injury was due to your own negligence, certainly. Say, not properly maintaining seat belts or airbags (if the car isn't a classic that doesn't have them).

That's the way it works with business today - if negligent, they can be sued. What this bill does is make the employer liable for its negligence, and then the actions of any rando crazy that walks in to shoot someone in that store.

That's not a bad one, I was thinking of taxi drivers myself. But it's a simple question--if you require customers to disarm in order to do business with you, should you assume responsibility for their safety? So in the case of your example, if the bus company in question left the person assaulted helpless to effectively defend themselves and didn't provide any defense itself, then yes, it should be held accountable for failing to do so. If you insist your customers be defenseless, then you should be responsible for that defense.

But of course allowing armed passengers on busses and planes and subways introduces another kind of risk, which is any of those armed decides to, say, hijack the bus or the plane, or just starts randomly shooting passengers because they're nutjob crazy and you can't take that AR off their hands when they enter the bus or prohibit them from riding.

You're trading one risk for many others.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Only reason I checked I would think about it is because some lib-tard would know doubt wind off a 30 rnd. mag. at some noise.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It's ridiculous. If you feel unsafe without your trusty Glock in a store, shop elsewhere.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

He thought he was going to be the good guy with the gun but he wound up being the dead guy with a gun.

 

[MamboDervish]

No sense going through life without making more jobs for attorneys. Let's make everyone who visits your home, business or property sign a waiver.

I'm sure in just a few weeks, Apple will have an iPhone app that signs it automatically when you cross the threshold.

 

[RetiredUSN]

If you are so scared of the world you cannot leave your home without a gun, hide under your bed, *****.

If you are so scared of responsible gun owners then maybe you should be the one hiding under your bed.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Businesses and private citizens should never be sued for not allowing firearms on the property regardless of any situation or circumstance........period.

 

[CLAX1911]

Every time you think we might have reached the limits of gun insanity, along comes another increased level of gun lobby insanity.

I'm not sure what the insanity is here.

The answer to this one is actually real simple for the sane and logical. - Here is my property. Here are my rules if you want to enter my property. If you aren't happy with my rules, don't enter my property. This follows the general intent of the constitution.

Or if it's private property such as a home yeah you get to make the rules. But if it's a private property that is at public accommodation you don't. You can't say no Jews you can't say no blacks you can't say no gays so you don't make the rules necessarily. I think this is more about businesses than it is about homes or farms.

Perhaps discriminating against people exercising their second amendment should be illegal.

Instead, the gun lobby wants to effectively threaten people that they can't make rules governing their own property because the gun lobby think they have to be in control. This has become standard right wing doctrine now. Talk about 'big government'!!

Again like I said I think this is more about businesses and you can't make rules governing your own property. I would support doing away with any kind of public accommodation laws. But as long as there are any all of them are up for question.

 

[CLAX1911]

If you are so scared of the world you cannot leave your home without a gun, hide under your bed, *****.

I have the right to bear arms. So if you're too afraid of being around people that might be carrying guns you need to hide under your bed.

 

[Ishm]

I'm not sure what the insanity is here.

Or if it's private property such as a home yeah you get to make the rules. But if it's a private property that is at public accommodation you don't. You can't say no Jews you can't say no blacks you can't say no gays so you don't make the rules necessarily. I think this is more about businesses than it is about homes or farms.

Perhaps discriminating against people exercising their second amendment should be illegal.

Again like I said I think this is more about businesses and you can't make rules governing your own property. I would support doing away with any kind of public accommodation laws. But as long as there are any all of them are up for question.

Try this then - Say I am a motorbike rider. I wear a helmet everywhere I go, even off the bike because it keeps my head safe. I go to the bank and they won't let me in with the helmet for obvious reasons. So I remove the helmet, but inside the bank some other person trips me over or deliberately attacks me or somehow causes my head to get hurt. So now that is the banks fault rather than the fault of the person who caused the injury. So now the banks have to allow people to wear full face helmets when entering a bank???