Georgia Bill Makes Property Owners Liable for Injuries in Gun-Free Zones

[Reptile]

Georgia House Bill 1364 makes property owners liable if a legal concealed carrier is harmed while barred from being armed for self-defense on the owner’s property.


HB 1364 says, “Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying… and who is injured… shall have a cause of action against the person, business or other entity that owns or legally controls such property,” according to 11 Alive.

Continues...

Georgia Bill Makes Property Owners Liable for Injuries in Gun-Free Zones

HB 1364 makes property owners liable if a legal concealed carrier is harmed while barred from carrying for self-defense on the property.

www.breitbart.com

 

[MGnoob]

I don’t know about that I’m pretty sure you should be able to tell somebody that guns aren’t allowed on your own property as far as it pertains to citizens… as far as government institutions. They should all get sued.

 

[Agnotology]

I'm not OK with this. Someone doesn't want guns on their property, that is their prerogative. I just won't enter that property rather than disarm and enter.

 

[67ray]

It doesn't say that they can't ban firearms on their priority, it says they can be sued if they do AND someone get hurt there. Curiously the quotation doesn't limit how they can be hurt but it is all subject to a court action and finding anyway,

 

[pastera]

The actual bill

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/225001

assumes absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of a lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying his or her weapon, including a concealed weapon, while on such property and any other property such lawful weapons carrier is required to traverse in order to store or retrieve such weapon

Not going to be many businesses prohibiting carry.

Probably has a better than even chance of surviving scrutiny

 

[In God We Trust]

Stupid bill is stupid. The guy who wrote this probably says “Merica!!” Without irony.

Edit: The reason private businesses ban guns is because of the lawyers. If I owned a business and had to make a choice, I’d ban guns also.

All this bill does is ensure that you are getting sued either way if some retard does something stupid on your property.

 

[pastera]

Stupid bill is stupid. The guy who wrote this probably says “Merica!!” Without irony.

Why stupid?

A person has the right to prohibit guns but that does not absolve them from the consequences of using that right.

Zero tolerance for fighting in schools only lead to more bullying since fighting back results in punishment for the innocent.

Same with gun free zones - property owner reduces their liability by prohibiting arms by making legal carriers less safe.
Store ower can still carry even in their posted store so why not force them to share the risk.

 

[In God We Trust]

Why stupid?

A person has the right to prohibit guns but that does not absolve them from the consequences of using that right.

Zero tolerance for fighting in schools only lead to more bullying since fighting back results in punishment for the innocent.

Same with gun free zones - property owner reduces their liability by prohibiting arms by making legal carriers less safe.
Store ower can still carry even in their posted store so why not force them to share the risk.

Because it forces a business to make a choice. The safe thing to do is say “no gunz” and therefore have no liability when someone does something stupid on your property.

Now they telling you that you have to allow gun or provide security which nobody can guarantee obviously.

 

[whacko]

Why stupid?

A person has the right to prohibit guns but that does not absolve them from the consequences of using that right.

Zero tolerance for fighting in schools only lead to more bullying since fighting back results in punishment for the innocent.

Same with gun free zones - property owner reduces their liability by prohibiting arms by making legal carriers less safe.
Store ower can still carry even in their posted store so why not force them to share the risk.

How about the business owner not be held responsible for any violent acts committed by people he or she has no direct control of?!?!?!?

The whole thing is f***ing f***ed.

 

[pastera]

Because it forces a business to make a choice. The safe thing to do is say “no gunz” and therefore have no liability when someone does something stupid on your property.

Now they telling you that you have to allow gun or provide security which nobody can guarantee obviously.

So you are saying that a legally carrying person is a realistic and quantifiable liability to a shop owner?

Can I say no minorities in my shop since that would statistically lower shrinkage and liability of violence simultaneously?

Business is already making a choice by posting no guns, this law just makes them take responsibility for their choice instead of the customer

As far as protection, I would argue that this law lowers liability since by not posting the owner is making it clear that they are not assuming responsibility for the customer's safety and the customer much act accordingly.

 

[pastera]

How about the business owner not be held responsible for any violent acts committed by people he or she has no direct control of?!?!?!?

The whole thing is f***ing f***ed.

When the police put a person in handcuffs they immediately become responsible for that person's safety since they, by putting them in handcuffs, restrict the person's right to defending their own life.

If a business owner decides to use the power of the state to restrict a person's right to defend their life then they should come under the same requirements.

Otherwise I agree that the owner shouldn't be responsible for the actions of others in his store unless he had knowledge that the person was likely to be violent.

 

[Bigfudge16]

Shop owners should have a right to ban whatever and whoever they want to from their private place of business. Ban firearms, ban white people, ban women, let the customers decide whether that business survives those choices not the state. Regarding liability it should not be assumed that you are any safer from violence in someone's shop than you are on the street. Injury from property negligence yes that is the owners responsibility. Injury from violent crime no, unless the crime is perpetrated by an employee.

 

[Flint]

I would like to see something like this at least for places of employment. Everywhere I've worked has prohibited firearms. You're taking a huge risk and jeopardizing your career if you care about your safety, something the company should provide if they're taking your rights away. We've got a couple folks with obvious mental health issues at my work and others using drugs on the job. Am I scared for my life? No, but I definitely think about it a lot.

 

[In God We Trust]

So you are saying that a legally carrying person is a realistic and quantifiable liability to a shop owner?

Can I say no minorities in my shop since that would statistically lower shrinkage and liability of violence simultaneously?

Business is already making a choice by posting no guns, this law just makes them take responsibility for their choice instead of the customer

As far as protection, I would argue that this law lowers liability since by not posting the owner is making it clear that they are not assuming responsibility for the customer's safety and the customer much act accordingly.

The entire reason this is even a law is because lawyers advised companies to say “no guns” in the first place. They were forced to take a position on a natural right and half the people didn’t like the choice they made.

Big box stores don’t give a F about anything beside profit, but the open carry AR-tards forced their hand. Starbucks anyone?

 

[pastera]

The entire reason this is even a law is because lawyers advised companies to say “no guns” in the first place. They were forced to take a position on a natural right and half the people didn’t like the choice they made.

Big box stores don’t give a F about anything beside profit, but the open carry AR-tards forced their hand. Starbucks anyone?

Sorry but I disagree with your position as it places the blame on the innocent instead of the government where it actually lays.

The reason why people were open carrying was because Texas infringed on the people's right to bear arms - Texas’ long history with weapons includes a handgun ban

So don't blame the people who had a set of balls and forced the state to recognize their right to self defense.

 

[In God We Trust]

Sorry but I disagree with your position as it places the blame on the innocent instead of the government where it actually lays.

The reason why people were open carrying was because Texas infringed on the people's right to bear arms - Texas’ long history with weapons includes a handgun ban

So don't blame the people who had a set of balls and forced the state to recognize their right to self defense.

Those same people got open carry completely banned in CA. I’m honestly surprised nobody in MA had pushed the envelope to that point yet.

 

[VTski4x4]

Those same people got open carry completely banned in CA. I’m honestly surprised nobody in MA had pushed the envelope to that point yet.

None of the sheep, and probably 90% of the legislature know that OC is technically legal in MA. It's never really brought to light because no one does it for fear of losing "suitability" via a "man with a gun" call to the PD. Possibly done by design.

 

[pastera]

Those same people got open carry completely banned in CA. I’m honestly surprised nobody in MA had pushed the envelope to that point yet.

So don't fight for your rights because tyrants might take something else away...

Sounds a lot like those who are fighting to get grandfathering of what they own into the Mass bill so they aren't effected.

 

[In God We Trust]

None of the sheep, and probably 90% of the legislature know that OC is technically legal in MA. It's never really brought to light because no one does it for fear of losing "suitability" via a "man with a gun" call to the PD. Possibly done by design.

I once talked to a cop who insisted it was illegal in MA. She said it was “disorderly conduct” or something like that.

 

[VTski4x4]

I once talked to a cop who insisted it was illegal in MA. She said it was “disorderly conduct” or something like that.

Perfect example of cops not knowing the laws on the books. Remember, cops aren't lawyers.

 

[fshalor]

Now if the expectation of a public access clause were added...

While this won't pass, or is a valid pendulum swing in the other side of the life line.