• ‘Gun-Free’ Businesses Would Be Held Responsible for Shootings Under New Minnesota Bill

    A new bill introduced in the Minnesota House would allow gun owners to pursue civil litigation if they suffer an injury, or worse, while in a gun-free zone.

    The bill, House File 3051, would provide for a civil course of action “when a person who is prohibited from carrying a firearm on a property suffers a loss by not having the firearm.”

    “A property owner or entity who prohibits the carrying of firearms by a person who is otherwise authorized to carry a firearm or who is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm shall assume absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of the unarmed person while the person is located on the owner’s or entity’s property that is posted with a sign prohibiting firearms,” states the bill.

    The bill was introduced last week by Rep. Jeremy Munson (R-Lake Crystal) and has four Republican co-sponsors.

    “In Minnesota we have now over 300,000 citizens who have a permit to carry a gun so a lot of people carry a gun for self-defense. More and more businesses are putting gun-free zone signs on their business—it really is a way to market to people who don’t like guns,” Munson said in a recent interview.



    continued..https://tennesseestar.com/2020/02/18...innesota-bill/


    Sign up for a free account to add your comment!


    Comments 35 Comments
    1. Swordsmyth's Avatar
      Swordsmyth -
      Good
    1. Origanalist's Avatar
      Origanalist -
      Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
      Good
      I doubt it passes in today's insane political environment but in a sane world it would be unanimous.
    1. Swordsmyth's Avatar
      Swordsmyth -
      Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
      I doubt it passes in today's insane political environment but in a sane world it would be unanimous.
      Times are changing.

      This will happen sooner or later.

    1. Danke's Avatar
      Danke -
      won't get anywhere in MN.
    1. juleswin's Avatar
      juleswin -
      How about the novel libertarian idea of not patronizing businesses with practices who don't support? enough with these new laws and lawsuits.
    1. Swordsmyth's Avatar
      Swordsmyth -
      Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
      How about the novel libertarian idea of not patronizing businesses with practices who don't support? enough with these new laws and lawsuits.
      Disarm me and you are responsible for my safety, it's that simple.
      And it's libertarian.
    1. osan's Avatar
      osan -
      Not at all certain I can agree with this.

      With private property follow private property rights.

      If Johnny DouchePig owns a business open to the public and wants no guns therein, it is his sovereign prerogative to ban them. Those who enter upon those premises, having been admonished of the prohibition, have no leg upon which to stand if, having so entered upon that property without a firearm in their possession, criminals enter the property contemporaneously and cause harm to said persons. Mr. DouchePig cannot be reasonably held liable for the acts of the criminals.

      Consider this: the law in question passes and something happens in a "no guns" establishment and all manner of people are injured or killed. Are those who would otherwise have not armed themselves also entitled to sue DouchePig? I dare say they do not. DouchePig may well be his namesake, but he is not obliged to provide you with protection.

      You come and you go, to and from business establishments as you might. If a given location gives you pause, then do not enter there. The choice is not only upon you fully, you cannot lay claim to the right to do business there. Were it otherwise, an entire can of worms would open before the world's eyes in terms of unforeseen consequences.

      The entire premise of this law, an apparently unstated one, is repellant to the idea of free men living as such and in accord with the demands that freedom places upon those who would claim that status openly. This law attempts to lay at the feet of men whose equal rights they seek to exercise, responsibilities that are not theirs.

      If I do not want guns in my home and you enter unarmed just as burglars arrive, in what manglng twist of logic do I become liable for the criminal acts of the perpetrators?

      This idea is idiotic and should be resoundingly trounced into the dust.

      PS: you can always enter armed in covert fashion. That is what I do all the time. Don't ask, don't tell. If perchance bad things happen and you kill a would-be murdered with your sidearm, the worst charge that could be brought (assuming competence and integrity of the local officials) is a trespassing violation. If DouchePig calls for charges in the wake of his having saved you from death, I would have to vote in favor of beating him verily with an iron bar.
    1. TheTexan's Avatar
      TheTexan -
      Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
      Times are changing.

      This will happen sooner or later.

      Could probably do without the one on the right. Looks like a nigerian.
    1. Krugminator2's Avatar
      Krugminator2 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
      I doubt it passes in today's insane political environment but in a sane world it would be unanimous.
      Really? What libertarian would support this? This is just a right wing "bake the cake Nazi" bill. The owner has every right to restrict guns and people know the risks of entering a gun free establishment. The culpability lies with the shooter not the business. There is a far more reasonable argument to be made for lawsuits if something happens in a public area that is a gun free zone.
    1. Slave Mentality's Avatar
      Slave Mentality -
      Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
      Not at all certain I can agree with this.

      With private property follow private property rights.

      I Johnny DouchePig owns a business open to the public and wants no guns therein, it is his sovereign prerogative to ban them. Those who enter upon those premises, having been admonished of the prohibition, have no leg upon which to stand if, having so entered upon that property without a firearm in their possession, criminals enter the property contemporaneously and cause harm to said persons, Mr. DouchePig cannot be reasonably held liable for the acts of the criminals.

      Consider this: the law in question passes and something happens in a "no guns" establishment and all manner of people are injured or killed. Are those who would otherwise have not armed themselves also entitled to sue DouchePig? I dare say they do not. DouchePig may well be his namesake, but he is not obliged to provide you with protection.

      You come and you go to and from business establishments as you might. If a given location gives you pause, then do not enter there. The choice is not only upon you fully, you cannot lay claim to the right to do business there. Were it otherwise, an entire can of worms would open before the world's eyes in terms of unforeseen consequences.

      The entire premise of this law, an apparently unstated one, is repellant to the idea of free men living as such and in accord with the demands that freedom places upon those who would claim that status openly. This law attempts to lay at the feet of men whose equal rights they seek to exercise, responsibilities that are not theirs.

      If I do not want guns in my home and you enter unarmed just as burglars arrive, in what manglng twist of logic do I become liable for the criminal acts of the perpetrators?

      This idea is idiotic and should be resoundingly trounced into the dust.
      That’s all fine and good in a private property situation and I agree with you. Where I disagree is in public Gun Free Zones in which we have no choice but to do business at times. If I am forced to go to the DMV unarmed then who is ultimately responsible for my personal safety while in their building? The state has removed my ability to make the choice. That’s one of many examples.

      If you delete my fundamental rights then you become my keeper. Keep me 100% guaranteed safe or get out of the way so I can go about it how I want to. God given and all that too.
    1. osan's Avatar
      osan -
      Quote Originally Posted by Slave Mentality View Post
      That’s all fine and good in a private property situation and I agree with you. Where I disagree is in public Gun Free Zones in which we have no choice but to do business at times. If I am forced to go to the DMV unarmed then who is ultimately responsible for my personal safety while in their building? The state has removed my ability to make the choice. That’s one of many examples.

      If you delete my fundamental rights then you become my keeper. Keep me 100% guaranteed safe or get out of the way so I can go about it how I want to. God given and all that too.
      There can be no validity to such zones in the commons. Whatever the source of such a prohibition, it would stand squarely liable for any and all damages inflicted upon ANYONE and ANY TIME so long at such a zone was being enforced under pain of felony charges, etc. The people responsible would be liable for full restitution and might even qualify for a death sentence, especially if they instituted such a zone under the imprimatur of a public office.

      Public officials and other agents have zero valid authority to place any such restrictions on any publicly owned space or other property. If they don't like our rights, they are most welcome to step down and go clean toilets or something more suited to their timid and likely corrupted characters.
    1. Origanalist's Avatar
      Origanalist -
      Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
      Really? What libertarian would support this? This is just a right wing "bake the cake Nazi" bill. The owner has every right to restrict guns and people know the risks of entering a gun free establishment. The culpability lies with the shooter not the business. There is a far more reasonable argument to be made for lawsuits if something happens in a public area that is a gun free zone.
      I don't disagree with this. My response was rather knee jerk and I was thinking pretty much entirely about public spaces and anything under government control.
    1. phill4paul's Avatar
      phill4paul -
      Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
      Not at all certain I can agree with this.

      With private property follow private property rights.

      If Johnny DouchePig owns a business open to the public and wants no guns therein, it is his sovereign prerogative to ban them. Those who enter upon those premises, having been admonished of the prohibition, have no leg upon which to stand if, having so entered upon that property without a firearm in their possession, criminals enter the property contemporaneously and cause harm to said persons. Mr. DouchePig cannot be reasonably held liable for the acts of the criminals.

      Consider this: the law in question passes and something happens in a "no guns" establishment and all manner of people are injured or killed. Are those who would otherwise have not armed themselves also entitled to sue DouchePig? I dare say they do not. DouchePig may well be his namesake, but he is not obliged to provide you with protection.

      You come and you go, to and from business establishments as you might. If a given location gives you pause, then do not enter there. The choice is not only upon you fully, you cannot lay claim to the right to do business there. Were it otherwise, an entire can of worms would open before the world's eyes in terms of unforeseen consequences.

      The entire premise of this law, an apparently unstated one, is repellant to the idea of free men living as such and in accord with the demands that freedom places upon those who would claim that status openly. This law attempts to lay at the feet of men whose equal rights they seek to exercise, responsibilities that are not theirs.

      If I do not want guns in my home and you enter unarmed just as burglars arrive, in what manglng twist of logic do I become liable for the criminal acts of the perpetrators?

      This idea is idiotic and should be resoundingly trounced into the dust.

      PS: you can always enter armed in covert fashion. That is what I do all the time. Don't ask, don't tell. If perchance bad things happen and you kill a would-be murdered with your sidearm, the worst charge that could be brought (assuming competence and integrity of the local officials) is a trespassing violation. If DouchePig calls for charges in the wake of his having saved you from death, I would have to vote in favor of beating him verily with an iron bar.
      Rarely do we disagree, but on this I must take the view in the OP. There is no "private property" for business open to the public anymore. Johnnie Douchebag cannot put up a sign reading "No Blacks allowed." Johnny Douchebag cannot refuse to provide handicap access.
    1. Swordsmyth's Avatar
      Swordsmyth -
      Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
      Not at all certain I can agree with this.

      With private property follow private property rights.

      If Johnny DouchePig owns a business open to the public and wants no guns therein, it is his sovereign prerogative to ban them. Those who enter upon those premises, having been admonished of the prohibition, have no leg upon which to stand if, having so entered upon that property without a firearm in their possession, criminals enter the property contemporaneously and cause harm to said persons. Mr. DouchePig cannot be reasonably held liable for the acts of the criminals.

      Consider this: the law in question passes and something happens in a "no guns" establishment and all manner of people are injured or killed. Are those who would otherwise have not armed themselves also entitled to sue DouchePig? I dare say they do not. DouchePig may well be his namesake, but he is not obliged to provide you with protection.

      You come and you go, to and from business establishments as you might. If a given location gives you pause, then do not enter there. The choice is not only upon you fully, you cannot lay claim to the right to do business there. Were it otherwise, an entire can of worms would open before the world's eyes in terms of unforeseen consequences.

      The entire premise of this law, an apparently unstated one, is repellant to the idea of free men living as such and in accord with the demands that freedom places upon those who would claim that status openly. This law attempts to lay at the feet of men whose equal rights they seek to exercise, responsibilities that are not theirs.

      If I do not want guns in my home and you enter unarmed just as burglars arrive, in what manglng twist of logic do I become liable for the criminal acts of the perpetrators?

      This idea is idiotic and should be resoundingly trounced into the dust.

      PS: you can always enter armed in covert fashion. That is what I do all the time. Don't ask, don't tell. If perchance bad things happen and you kill a would-be murdered with your sidearm, the worst charge that could be brought (assuming competence and integrity of the local officials) is a trespassing violation. If DouchePig calls for charges in the wake of his having saved you from death, I would have to vote in favor of beating him verily with an iron bar.
      Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
      Really? What libertarian would support this? This is just a right wing "bake the cake Nazi" bill. The owner has every right to restrict guns and people know the risks of entering a gun free establishment. The culpability lies with the shooter not the business. There is a far more reasonable argument to be made for lawsuits if something happens in a public area that is a gun free zone.
      Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
      I don't disagree with this. My response was rather knee jerk and I was thinking pretty much entirely about public spaces and anything under government control.

      If you make a policy of disarming your customers you not only disarm them but advertise their disarmament to would be criminals.
      You absolutely are responsible to provide protection or be liable for any harm that comes to them.
      If you don't want to be responsible then either don't disarm your customers or have a private club with a contract that holds you harmless.
    1. Swordsmyth's Avatar
      Swordsmyth -
      Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
      Could probably do without the one on the right. Looks like a nigerian.
      K is within all of us.
    1. navy-vet's Avatar
      navy-vet -
      Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
      Disarm me and you are responsible for my safety, it's that simple.
      And it's libertarian.
      Exactly!
    1. Anti Globalist's Avatar
      Anti Globalist -
      If I owned a business I would allow people to bring their guns into my store.
    1. revgen's Avatar
      revgen -
      I disagree with this bill as written. If the sign on the door simply says "No Guns Allowed", I'm not in favor of punishment of the property owner. If you're not comfortable with the rules, don't enter the building.

      That being said, I've seen some businesses that have signs saying "For your safety and ours, firearms are not allowed on the premises". In this case, I'm in favor of allowing the private property owner to be sued, since the property owner is assuring the customer that they are safe in their building.

      A property owner shouldn't be punished for making rules that you don't agree with. It's their property. Not yours. If they're making false promises and assurances that they can't keep, then it's fair game.
    1. osan's Avatar
      osan -
      Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
      There is no "private property" for business open to the public anymore.
      How do you reason? What have I missed?

      Johnnie Douchebag cannot put up a sign reading "No Blacks allowed." Johnny Douchebag cannot refuse to provide handicap access.
      That's DouchePIG, sir. That aside, he should be able to do all that without governmental interference. The market, OTOH, may vote with its wallet.
    1. osan's Avatar
      osan -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
      If I owned a business I would allow people to bring their guns into my store.
      The Exxon station in Pinch WV has a sign welcoming firearms bearing customers. They're good people.


    Sign up for a free account to add your comment!





    Continue / discuss in the forums Read More

  • Top Activist Efforts

  • Activism News & Discussion

    Deborah K

    If we could buy 1000 acres or more, who would join us?

    Thread Starter: Deborah K

    I wrote a thread the other day asking for your top 10 states in which to live: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421667-Please-rank-the-top-10-states-in-which-to-live I did it because Mark and I have pretty much decided we can't live in Cali anymore, so we're going to move as many of our family members as want to leave, to another state. Our efforts here have run their course, Cali...

    Last Post By: SpiritOf1776_J4 04-03-2020, 10:12 AM Go to last post
    Occam's Banana

    Ten Principles for Escaping the Matrix and Standing Up to Tyranny

    Thread Starter: Occam's Banana

    h/t LewRockwell.com: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/john-w-whitehead/escaping-the-matrix/ Slave or Rebel? Ten Principles for Escaping the Matrix and Standing Up to Tyranny https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/slave_or_rebel_ten_principles_for_escaping_the_matrix_and_standing_up_1 John W. Whitehead (08 June 2015) “Until they become conscious,...

    Last Post By: Occam's Banana 04-03-2020, 04:59 AM Go to last post
    Theocrat

    Time For a Massi(v)e "Moneybomb"

    Thread Starter: Theocrat

    Last Post By: Warlord 04-02-2020, 12:59 PM Go to last post
  • Ron Paul & Rand Paul: News & Discussion

    fisharmor

    Can anyone find a health status update on Rand?

    Thread Starter: fisharmor

    I can't find any updates on how he's doing, and I can't help but believe it's probably because he's asymptomatic and it would hurt the narrative to see someone not get sick at all, especially since Tom Hanks is pulling out of it with no issues. IOW this is a gigantic nothingburger, and I take the lack of news as evidence.

    Last Post By: kcchiefs6465 Today, 07:06 PM Go to last post
    Cap

    Distraction? Trump Sends Warships To Venezuela

    Thread Starter: Cap

    Last Post By: osan Today, 01:35 PM Go to last post
  • General News & Politics

    JoshLowry

    All beaches should be open to individuals who want to fish for food

    Thread Starter: JoshLowry

    If the scenario continues to play out where (1) non-essential businesses are closed (2) the government only plans on giving $1200 to a work force that is >60% paycheck to paycheck over a multi-month lock down who have rent to pay (3) homeless no longer receive charity do to drastic reduction of charitable workforce on road then why are we not allowing individuals access to the...

    Last Post By: shakey1 Today, 09:39 PM Go to last post
    AngryCanadian

    Racism is the biggest - and most violent - elephant in white America’s room.

    Thread Starter: AngryCanadian

    A first generation Indian-American. Former congressional liberal democrat just said that racism is the biggest - and most violent - elephant in white America’s room basically calling every American whites a racist. While defending Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her demands that racial groups like blacks be given free money to. Just wow to go so far and say that all whites in America are the...

    Last Post By: kahless Today, 08:55 PM Go to last post
    AngryCanadian

    Joe Biden Calls For Green Deal to increase economic growth.

    Thread Starter: AngryCanadian

    Liberal voters and supporters would be very stupid if they honestly believe that Biden's Green Deal would increase economic growth! a green deal would end thousands of thousands jobs in America alone. A green deal would end coal and other neutral resources based jobs which creates heat during winter. But of course liberals dont seem to care. They think solar and wind power would be enough...

    Last Post By: Krugminator2 Today, 07:36 PM Go to last post
    Anti Federalist

    Woman Who Ingested Fish Tank Cleaner Is Prolific Donor to Democratic Causes

    Thread Starter: Anti Federalist

    This whole thing is now starting to sound fishy, pun intended. I'm calling bull$#@!: she deliberately poisoned him, while she took a lesser or weaker dose and then cooked up this nonsense story to create an alibi. Woman Who Ingested Fish Tank Cleaner Is Prolific Donor to Democratic Causes ...

    Last Post By: donnay Today, 07:30 PM Go to last post
    James_Madison_Lives

    Food Shortages? Time for Trump to Announce New Victory Gardens and Urban Food Forests Push

    Thread Starter: James_Madison_Lives

    It's happening...

    Last Post By: nikcers Today, 07:07 PM Go to last post
    Warlord

    Joe Rogan: "I think I'll probably vote for Bernie"

    Thread Starter: Warlord

    1220445820505546755 https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1220445820505546755

    Last Post By: jmdrake Today, 04:47 PM Go to last post
    Warlord

    The Cult of Trump

    Thread Starter: Warlord

    I saw this snippet from the LP in an article about Thomas Massie. I thought it was worth sharing as I think he echoes what many on here feel. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/02/thomas-massie-example-why-gop-officials-fear-president-trump/2932918001/

    Last Post By: nikcers Today, 04:33 PM Go to last post
    Anti Federalist

    Why is nobody raising hell about the invasive census?

    Thread Starter: Anti Federalist

    10 years ago we had all manner of threads going on this subject. This time...crickets. I've done the same thing I did ten years ago. Stapled a letter to their massive multi page form stating: REDACTED number of people live at this residence. That is all you are constitutionally permitted to require from me.

    Last Post By: CoastieInColorado Today, 02:18 PM Go to last post
    Stanleybolten

    Alex Jones makes unprecedented comments attacking Qanon, calling them basically a Terrorist Or

    Thread Starter: Stanleybolten

    Alex Jones makes unprecedented comments attacking Qanon/Alliance, calling them basically a Terrorist Organization with his comments https://justiceforuswgo.wordpress.com/2020/04/05/alex-jones-makes-unprecedented-comments-attacking-qanon-alliance-calling-them-basically-a-terrorist-organization-with-his-comments/ by Laurie Azgard

    Last Post By: Pauls' Revere Today, 09:07 AM Go to last post
  • Gold Price Chart

    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]
  • Silver Price Chart

  • Economics News & Discussion

    Madison320

    Are these shortages the result of price inflation?

    Thread Starter: Madison320

    I'm wondering if the shortages we are experiencing are the beginnings of massive price inflation. Since businesses are not allowed to raise prices to market level due to price gouging laws I have a feeling we may be seeing the beginning of price inflation for consumer goods. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/us/coronavirus-price-gouging-hand-sanitizer-masks-wipes.html ...

    Last Post By: Madison320 Today, 08:38 AM Go to last post
    Krugminator2

    Nation’s biggest department stores could run out of funds in a month: Goldman Sachs

    Thread Starter: Krugminator2

    This seems kind of problematic. https://therealdeal.com/2020/04/03/nations-biggest-department-stores-could-run-out-of-funds-in-a-month-goldman-sachs/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter I feel like people saying the economy should stay shut down for a month have no idea the tidal wave that could be coming. I found this from JP Morgan study of small business in 2016 ...

    Last Post By: phill4paul Today, 06:15 AM Go to last post
    mustang19

    Gold will be stupidly worthless in a hyperinflation scenario

    Thread Starter: mustang19

    The gold supply has increased enormously since 1776. In a peak oil social collapse there might be 1 million people surviving and 1000 tons of gold. If gold is 1% of the economy like it always has been then your annual income will be a ton of gold. Gold would be extremely abundant in a social collapse scenario, the gold morons will die and people who buy things that are practical/useful wont.

    Last Post By: oyarde Yesterday, 05:48 PM Go to last post
    oyarde

    Domino's gets no 1st qtr corona boost

    Thread Starter: oyarde

    dominos first quarter same store sales growth up only 1.6 percent . Dismal for a 325.00 stock that should be seeing huge increases in sales of carryout pizzas . Lowest increase since 2011. What does this show us ? The Nasdaq is still full of overvalued stocks .

    Last Post By: dannno 04-02-2020, 10:45 PM Go to last post
  • Bitcoin Price Chart

  • Living Free and Healthy

    Danke

    It is gonna be a cold winter.

    Thread Starter: Danke

    This fall the Indians on a remote reservation asked their new Chief Oyarde if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild. Since he was a chief in a modern society, he’d never learned the old tribal secrets. He couldn’t look at the sky to predict what the winter was going to be like. "It's going to be a very cold winter." So just to be on the safe side, Oyarde told his tribe that the...

    Last Post By: oyarde Today, 12:51 PM Go to last post
    Brian4Liberty

    Marijuana Use May Increase Risk of False Memories

    Thread Starter: Brian4Liberty

    Marijuana Use May Increase Risk of False Memories

    Last Post By: pcosmar Yesterday, 04:18 PM Go to last post
  • Education & Thought Power

    LexEtLibertas

    Societal Sadomasochism

    Thread Starter: LexEtLibertas

    *The* great age-old social problem that has faced mankind, and still very much does, is that most people do not love themselves, but instead actually hate themselves. Human beings tend to be extreme gluttons for punishment. This can unmistakably be seen in the extreme systems of mass-horror that humans continuously construct for themselves. It's not as if we don't have essentially the entirety of...

    Last Post By: LexEtLibertas Today, 12:19 PM Go to last post
    mustang19

    Libertopia is just the welfare state

    Thread Starter: mustang19

    A lot of regulations are just Natural Law. For example traffic tickets and pollution regs are some type of pointed gun problem, bankruptcy law is a defense against creditor harrassment, insider trading is fraud because when you buy a stock you are assuming the company wont just shill it, discrimination is a damage against shareholders because the company is supposed to hire on skill and not...

    Last Post By: oyarde Yesterday, 02:10 PM Go to last post
  • Follow us on Twitter! Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our top news RSS Feed! New! Subscribe to us on YouTube!