• ‘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

    cjm

    Massie money grenade

    Thread Starter: cjm

    wtf? for liberty, and old times' sake. Cheers, Thomas! ETA: time stamp obviously GMT

    Last Post By: tebowlives Today, 03:04 AM Go to last post
    Conza88

    Must See Movies

    Thread Starter: Conza88

    The point of this is to collect must see quality movies, tv shows, & series that pertain to our movement of peace, freedom, liberty & prosperity including government inefficiency & immorality. Films that encourage individualism over tyranny, self-responsibility over paternalism, and that offer a hearty dose of against-the-grain individualism etc. Movies that enlighten about the current state of...

    Last Post By: Ender Yesterday, 04:56 PM Go to last post
    merkelstan

    Take Ellison Down: Terrorist Supporter?

    Thread Starter: merkelstan

    https://100percentfedup.com/breaking-mn-attorney-general-keith-ellison-deletes-2018-tweet-of-himself-holding-up-antifa-handbook-saying-i-just-found-the-book-that-strike-fear-in-the-heart-of-donald-trump/ Keith Ellison, attn Gen of Minnesota appears to have bought an Antia book. This could be a federal crime under "Material Support For Terrorism" ? Any Minnesotans want to fund the...

    Last Post By: John-G Yesterday, 10:22 AM Go to last post
    Working Poor

    The Odds of the “1/3” USA Winning Against the NWO

    Thread Starter: Working Poor

    This is a video with Sibel Edmonds, defiantly a part of the liberty movement talking about the advantage we have in all this BS going right now. She talks about the oath of the military and police to defend the constitution and encourages us all to support our vets, military and police in this. She is so pretty I thought a lot of you could stand to listen to this encouraging word even though it...

    Last Post By: Warrior_of_Freedom 06-03-2020, 10:50 AM Go to last post
  • Ron Paul & Rand Paul: News & Discussion

    PAF

    It's All Political! Corona Lockdown Leaders Now Joining Mass Protests!

    Thread Starter: PAF

    June 3, 2020 "Stay home, save lives," the politicians and media demanded. And Americans stayed home for months and lost their jobs and their mental and physical health. If you go out, they said, you will kill people by passing on the virus. But all of a sudden these same politicians have turned on a dime in the aftermath of the killing of a Minnesota man in police custody - all of a sudden...

    Last Post By: RPfan1992 Today, 01:02 AM Go to last post
    jct74

    Rand Paul explains why he's holding up anti-lynching bill

    Thread Starter: jct74

    Rand is the only person in the Senate speaking out on this and he's taking a lot of heat for it. Here is his explanation in his own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTt9Wwd0-74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB8AjRz1vjM

    Last Post By: Warrior_of_Freedom Yesterday, 02:39 PM Go to last post
    Sammy

    Incredible Disappearing Coronavirus - The Narrative Has Failed

    Thread Starter: Sammy

    Last Post By: euphemia Yesterday, 11:29 AM Go to last post
  • General News & Politics

    Anti Federalist

    The Bible Won’t Save Us, Only Brute Force Will

    Thread Starter: Anti Federalist

    The Bible Won’t Save Us, Only Brute Force Will https://newswithviews.com/the-bible-wont-save-us-only-brute-force-will/ By Cliff Kincaid|June 3rd, 2020 President Trump emerged from his White House bunker on Monday night to give a short speech and then travel to a burned-out church just a block away. He made sure that the police and the military cleared a path for him. Then he held up a...

    Last Post By: Swordsmyth Today, 02:33 AM Go to last post
    jmdrake

    Muhammed Ali jogging in boots

    Thread Starter: jmdrake

    For the people who just can't fathom why someone would jog in boots instead of running shoes. They act as ankle weights.

    Last Post By: misterx Today, 02:24 AM Go to last post
    enhanced_deficit

    Did Trump deliver on his "Make America Great Again" promise?

    Thread Starter: enhanced_deficit

    With his 4 years term nearing its end, has Trump so far delivered on his "Make America Great Again" promise? Vote in attached poll.

    Last Post By: enhanced_deficit Today, 02:20 AM Go to last post
    dannno

    Candace Owens Livestream: "I DO NOT support George Floyd!" Here's Why!

    Thread Starter: dannno

    Last Post By: misterx Today, 02:07 AM Go to last post
    Anti Federalist

    BLM imposter gets white woman to kneel and beg to be forgiven

    Thread Starter: Anti Federalist

    Last Post By: misterx Today, 02:05 AM Go to last post
    trey4sports

    Buffalo Police Officers Violently Shove Man Down Causing Serious Harm

    Thread Starter: trey4sports

    Absolutely sickening. This is prime example of why we need to end Qualified Immunity.

    Last Post By: misterx Today, 01:33 AM Go to last post
    Anti Federalist

    "Karen" white shames women cleaning up graffiti

    Thread Starter: Anti Federalist

    1268580569430048768 https://twitter.com/DisrnNews/status/1268580569430048768 Accosting the three women, the female driver said, "Why are you guys removing Black Lives Matter graffiti?" The three explained that they were trying to clean up their community. "But why do you want that to come off?" the driver asked. One of the cleaners replied, "Because this is a federal...

    Last Post By: misterx Today, 01:28 AM Go to last post
    AngryCanadian

    Minneapolis City Council members consider disbanding the police

    Thread Starter: AngryCanadian

    This is what BLM and their activism wants for all America, North America. Good luck with the chaos once disband the police at some police they will ask for protection again. This how stupidity works. Minneapolis City Council members consider disbanding the police

    Last Post By: AngryCanadian Today, 12:02 AM Go to last post
    AngryCanadian

    CNN Tells White Parents To Guilt & Shame Their Kids To Fight Racism

    Thread Starter: AngryCanadian

    CNN sure loves to be race obsessed and it shows! and yet white children should be indoctrinated to feel shame, guilt about race. In otherw ords White children should not be allowed to have an innocent childhood. Because their white privilege starts at an early. Whats next continue to black wash characters and remove white characters replace them with black characters to feel more shame and...

    Last Post By: euphemia Yesterday, 10:03 PM Go to last post
    Snowball

    Twice as many unarmed whites were shot dead by police in 2019 than blacks.

    Thread Starter: Snowball

    Twice as many unarmed whites were shot dead by police in 2019 than blacks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

    Last Post By: fcreature Yesterday, 09:59 PM Go to last post
  • Gold Price Chart

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

  • Economics News & Discussion

    Warlord

    Black Friday?

    Thread Starter: Warlord

    Nikkei 225 21,033.51 −914.72 (-4.17%) Brace for Freefall Friday: Traders warn 'the worst is yet to come TODAY' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8050743/London-stock-markets-coronavirus-freefall.html

    Last Post By: Krugminator2 Yesterday, 06:22 PM Go to last post
    Firestarter

    Billionaires profit from the corona crisis

    Thread Starter: Firestarter

    On 7 April, the Forbes story that lots of billionaires lost lots of money from the coronavirus “pandemic” was widely (re)published by our wonderful media? It looks like Forbes intentionally selected 18 March as the best date to push this propaganda. Chuck Collins commented: In the same month that 22 million Americans lost their jobs (with US employment rate coming close to 15%), American...

    Last Post By: Firestarter Yesterday, 09:26 AM Go to last post
    PAF

    The Donald Means MABA: The Great Fiscal Miscreant Will Make America Broke Again

    Thread Starter: PAF

    August 01, 2019 By David Stockman You couldn’t have timed that better. The Donald managed to hold on to a “2” in Friday’s GDP report, but it was entirely due to a boom in government spending. We’d call it a kind of stick save that came, ironically, the very day Trump is planning to sign a $1.7 trillion budget abomination. The deal negotiated with Pelosi and Chuckles Schumer, and voted...

    Last Post By: RonZeplin Yesterday, 05:53 AM 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 Yesterday, 07:51 PM Go to last post
  • Education & Thought Power

    sam1952

    BLM is a leftist lie

    Thread Starter: sam1952

    This well worth the six minutes.. “It’s a police brutality issue”

    Last Post By: jkr Yesterday, 08:37 PM Go to last post
    Conothimand

    Piketty's idea

    Thread Starter: Conothimand

    French economist Thomas Piketty suggested giving money to people, just like that. He said "Capitalism is ending", what do you think about his idea?

    Last Post By: Warrior_of_Freedom Yesterday, 07:20 PM Go to last post
    PAF

    Another Angry White Guy?

    Thread Starter: PAF

    Jun 3, 2020 Larken Rose: Just some angry, armed white guy who has some things to say about police abuse, protests, riots, and freedom.

    Last Post By: jmdrake 06-03-2020, 08:42 PM Go to last post
    Firestarter

    Dictator of the British Empire

    Thread Starter: Firestarter

    When I tell the people in Britain that they´re ruled by dictator Queen Elizabeth, they think I’m insane. Arguably England is the only real colonial power left in the world. LETTERS PRINCE CHARLES It is well-known that Queen Elizabeth has a weekly talk with the puppet she selected for Prime Minister. That the Royals talk with politicians to give them “advice” becomes clear when you read the...

    Last Post By: Firestarter 06-03-2020, 08:52 AM 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!