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

[Origanalist]

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/

[Swordsmyth]

Good

[Origanalist]

Good

I doubt it passes in today's insane political environment but in a sane world it would be unanimous.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[Danke]

won't get anywhere in MN.

[juleswin]

How about the novel libertarian idea of not patronizing businesses with practices who don't support? enough with these new laws and lawsuits.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[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.

[TheTexan]

Times are changing.

This will happen sooner or later.

Could probably do without the one on the right. Looks like a nigerian.

[Krugminator2]

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.

[Slave Mentality]

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.

[osan]

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.

[Origanalist]

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.

[phill4paul]

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.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

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.

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.

[Swordsmyth]

Could probably do without the one on the right. Looks like a nigerian.

K is within all of us.

[navy-vet]

Disarm me and you are responsible for my safety, it's that simple.
And it's libertarian.

Exactly!

[Anti Globalist]

If I owned a business I would allow people to bring their guns into my store.

[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.

[osan]

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.

[osan]

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.

[Zippyjuan]

I have a business where a ask my customers not to do something in my store. Somebody comes in and does that activity I banned and another person is harmed. I am the one who should be sued? Or should it be the person committing the prohibited act against my wishes?

[Swordsmyth]

I have a business where a ask my customers not to do something in my store. Somebody comes in and does that activity I banned and another person is harmed. I am the one who should be sued? Or should it be the person committing the prohibited act against my wishes?

You let everyone know that your customers were easy pickings.
The criminal should be punished but if the customers can't get full compensation from him then you are responsible.

[kpitcher]

Private business obviously wrong. Any consumer can take their business elsewhere just like deciding on a baker.

I do wonder, can you show up armed to the offices of Rep. Jeremy Munson?

[phill4paul]

How do you reason? What have I missed?



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.

The difference between "should" and "can" is the distance of a long hot asphalt mile. What I'm saying is that since DouchePig must accommodate the "rights" of blacks and the "rights" of the disabled, then DouchePig should have to accommodate the basic fundamental right of self-defense. No "gun-free" zone allowed. Either accept that "the public" has the right to go about armed in your establishment or hand over your business license and close your $#@!ing door to the general public.

[juleswin]

The difference between "should" and "can" is the distance of a long hot asphalt mile. What I'm saying is that since DouchePig must accommodate the "rights" of blacks and the "rights" of the disabled, then DouchePig should have to accommodate the basic fundamental right of self-defense. No "gun-free" zone allowed. Either accept that "the public" has the right to go about armed in your establishment or hand over your business license and close your $#@!ing door to the general public.

This is a battle that will harm you more than it helps you. You continue to play this game with the establishment and soon enough they will demand you open your restrooms to transgender women. I say its better to stop the bleeding instead trying to make more cuts. Quit while your are ahead

[phill4paul]

This is a battle that will harm you more than it helps you. You continue to play this game with the establishment and soon enough they will demand you open your restrooms to transgender women. I say its better to stop the bleeding instead trying to make more cuts. Quit while your are ahead

Lol. The game is already afoot. And they already do.

[oyarde]

Inside a city in Minnesota you are surrounded by communists , democrats , criminal immigrants and other degenerates . Of course I will still be armed no matter what the sign says.Signs are for peasantry . Secretly they are all seeking a chance to steal your wallet so you must be prepared to defend yourself and eliminate them when they strike .

[osan]

The difference between "should" and "can" is the distance of a long hot asphalt mile. What I'm saying is that since DouchePig must accommodate the "rights" of blacks and the "rights" of the disabled, then DouchePig should have to accommodate the basic fundamental right of self-defense. No "gun-free" zone allowed. Either accept that "the public" has the right to go about armed in your establishment or hand over your business license and close your $#@!ing door to the general public.

Given the positive reality, I may agree, but said reality sucks Michelle Obama. I'd rather the reality change such that "Irish need not apply" carries zero criminal liability.

[osan]

Lol. The game is already afoot. And they already do.

Sure, but does it make sense to comply?

The question I always like to ask is this: if one of the state legislatures went apey and reinsituted Jim Crow, would you sit idle for it? I, for one, would not. I'd make sure and have dem'ole kneegrows over for dinner, eating from "whites only" dishes and all that. If the sherf wants to come and try and arrest me, we can dance.

At what point do you draw that line in the sand and say "no further!"?

We should have adopted a habit and culture of killing off any government agent, elected, appointed, hired, or contracted, who violated the rights of free men in the least measure. But we didn't and the woe is now upon us, and rightly so for we have forsaken ourselves and all that is decent of the human family for the sake of... well, what, really? An illusion of order, or safety, or good behavior in the face of false authority? We sold our souls to Satan for a mere pittance and now some of us rue the choices of our forbears.

I dunno pal, I'm thinking we took the wrong step years ago. To that spirit, I give you Hawkwind, but beware, it is a sad song: