Concealed carriers have long said if property owners don’t allow them to carry on their property, then those property owners should be held liable if people are attacked on it and can’t protect themselves. After all, it only makes sense, as it is the owners posting “No Guns” signs on their property that are leaving gun owners defenseless in areas where criminals have no qualms about having a gun.
Now, a measure introduced in the Georgia legislature would put that onus on property owners who restrict lawful residents from carrying on their property. The measure, House Bill 1364, was introduced by Republican state Rep. Martin Momtahan.
“All we want to make sure is, if you’re in the store or anywhere and it has a ‘no gun’ sign, then that store needs to understand they have absolute custodial care of that person,” Rep. Momtahan said of the measure.
According to the text of the legislation, “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.”
The measure further describes what a concealed carrier would have to prove in order to win a ruling in his or her favor if an incident were to occur.
“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.”
The measure also requires that anyone posting a notice on their property that firearms are prohibited must also post language on that notice acknowledging that any person while on such property shall be under absolute custodial care of the property owner.
As proposed, the law would not apply to properties where carry bans are required by state or federal government entities.
The measure has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration. If approved by the state legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Bryan Kemp, the law would go into effect on July 1.
And these property ‘owners/controllers’ should be held responsible.
I could be held responsible if I created a condition on my residence property that increased a persons likely hood of injury or in some way removed a persons ability to prevent or mitigate their injury or I failed to ‘mitigate’ such likely hood of injury.
A public access business property should be held responsible for this to….oh wait, they already are in all 50 states but the ‘gun free zone’ signs gives them an excuse to not be held responsible for the violent crime attracted to those zones. So the ‘guns free zone’ signs are them actually introducing and creating a condition where a person (a law abiding gun owner in this case) does not have the means of defense to prevent or mitigate their injury from violent criminals and the ‘gun free zone’ signs are actually creating that ‘danger’. So yeah, a business property ‘owner/controller’ should be held responsible for that ‘custodial care’ if they have a ‘gun free zone’ sign up.
this could serve to incentivize the removal of many gfz signs.
convicting violent ne’er do wells might be helpful.
“convicting violent ne’er do wells might be helpful.”
We can’t have that, it’s racist! 🙁
On a more serious note, what are the constitutional arguments we can expect against it?
Wait that was a joke?
“Wait that was a joke?”
No. You can bet your sweet ass they are gonna fight that, tooth and nail.
So, how are they gonna attack it in court?
Is it possible a particular demographic is more inclined to criminal activity?
Could it be a cultural thing where education and positive work ethic are seen as not being a part of the group?
“Is it possible a particular demographic is more inclined to criminal activity?”
In application, it’s irrelevant, it’s strictly a behavioral issue. Don’t act like a violent thug, and you won’t be treated as one…
Geoff,
“Don’t act like a violent thug, and you won’t be treated as one . . . ”
Several thoughts:
1. Based on the “free pass” which (until VERY recently, and then only in a couple of cases) given to Leftist/fascist “protestors” (particularly the Antifa-Burn/Loot/Murder crowd), one might reasonably inquire when “certain” violent thugs will be treated as such. Pray outside an abortion clinic, or report honestly about the shady doings of the CCP-owned Xiao Bai-din Administration, and you will surely get perp-walked on TV by a battle-clad FBI “SWAT” team. Make a serious (if incompetent and ultimately unsuccessful) effort to trap and burn to death a local police precinct, or destroy construction equipment being used to build a new police facility, or throw paint or soup on a priceless artwork, and you’re all good.
2. Because so many “law enforcement officers” have proven willing to act to enforce OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional decrees, EOs, and suchlike, what is your confidence level that, even IF ordered to do so, they will act forcefully or effectively against the Antifa-Burn/Loot/Murder crowd?
3. If the prevailing culture of certain groups REQUIRES thuggish behavior to be accepted and have “street cred”, do you REALLY think even a credible threat of LEO response will discourage them?
Just askin’, for a friend.
Convicting AND INCARCERATING…………FOR A LONG TIME.
In a nutshell it’s called Discrimination that falls in line with No Negros Allowed, No Irish Allowed, etc. The sign singles out gun owners, infringes on a Constitutional Right and holds the door open for criminals to feed on defenseless victims. Everything Gun Control zealots do today is rooted in the diabolical History of Gun Control…Everything.
https://nypost.com/2024/03/06/us-news/st-louis-tv-station-kmov-under-fire-after-anchor-cory-stark-uses-outdated-racial-term/
As much as I loathe legislating much of anything nowadays (TOO MANY FREAKING LAWS) I’m OK with this one.
This
Makes
Too
Much
Sense !!!
(head explodes)
While I support this and will be contacting my local Representative and Senator, I am not sure it actually has any meaning since none of those signs actually mean anything here in Georgia. The only places that can legally forbid carry here are the usual federal and state locations like a post office, court house, or federal building.
If there’s a metal detector and I have to go in I’ll disarm. Otherwise, I just ignore those signs. I still like the idea of this bill. If nothing else, maybe it will make those business owners rethink having the signs to begin with.
Maybe we should also hold responsible those politicians who promote ‘gun free zones’.
gun free zones, defined:
“gun (gŭn) free (frē) zone (zōn)
* Trap in which people congregate and are falsely promised safety by a make believe force field of a ‘No Guns” prohibition.
* A place where people are disarmed and not permitted self-defense with firearms.
* Hunting grounds for predator criminals where defenseless prey is guaranteed by law.
* Place where existing laws against violent crimes do not work to prevent violent crimes the laws are touted to be able to prevent.
* Places designed to attract violently mentally ill predators.
* Places where police forces cease to operate to protect before the fact of a violent crime as they are touted to be able to do by politicians implying.
further (from a previous jwm heading), “gun free zones are a crime against humanity.”
tsbhoa (and jwm),
Slight correction suggested: “gun free zones are a crime against otherwise law-abiding and rational humanity, in favor of criminals, thugs, and the government” (ah, but I repeat myself, thrice).
There, FIFY.
i’ll warrant, depending on daffy nishun of humanity. the cretins who benefit are subhuman for sure.
As much as I want the freedom to go anywhere I choose with a firearm, I dislike government telling private property owners what they can do on/with their property.
Any business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Commerce should ALWAYS be a voluntary transaction with all involved parties.
I prefer to simply avoid anti-gun business owners.
Not so fast…When a business opens its doors to the public there are laws against discrimination they have to abide by. I.E. With people dying from heart disease the proprietor of let’s say a pizzeria cannot put up a sign saying, Overweights Not Allowed.
BS Zero – No individual gets to remove, from any other, the rights which God has bestowed. Or perhaps you out rank God?
Hes not saying he outranks God.
I see his point, but I think it a little misplaced.
A government telling private property owners what they can do on/with their property, is not how its suppose to be. But there is a difference between private property intended to be and kept private (e.g. a home) and that of a private property (e.g. a business) being open to the public as a ‘public accommodation’.
If a business is going to operate in such a manner as to, on their property, basically, remove the right to firearms carry (e.g. no guns zone) they have removed the individuals means of defense they would normally and suppose to have in public.
If they do that (guns free zone thing) they have removed a persons ability to prevent or mitigate their ‘injury’ in case of ‘attack’ by the violent criminal element such zones are factually and provably known to attract.
In other words, by designating their ‘public accommodation’ ‘private property’ business a ‘gun free zone’ they have actually created a ‘liability’ for the ‘public at large’ who may use their business because such zones are factually and provably known to attract violent criminal element because that element knows its more unlikely someone would be armed thus unable to stop them. Thus that ‘business’ needs to mitigate that liability they created by providing ‘mitigation’ in the form of, as the bill put it, “custodial care” of that ‘person’ (e.g patrons of the business).
They are not telling the business what they can or can not do, they are not saying they can not designate their business as a ‘gun free zones’ and these business are still free to do that if they wish. They are basically telling the businesses they are responsible for the liability they created by such designation.
The Government tells private business owners how they can operate their businesses everyday. There are literally thousands of laws and bureaucratic regulations on the books. So why would you be against one that upholds your Constitutional Rights and allows you to protect yourself and your family. When that same business owner will not.
I don’t think hes against it, I think he just doesn’t understand it.
“I prefer to simply avoid anti-gun business owners.”
You favor the ‘separate but equal’ angle?
Screw that.
Gun owners today are treated the same way Blacks were treated 60-odd years back. I for one, will not tolerate riding ‘in the back of the bus’ or using the ‘colored’ water fountain. They are just gonna have to learn to accept us…
In Ohio, the charge for ignoring such a sign on private property can be either criminal trespass, or aggravated trespass, depending on what the location is, and the penalty can include fines, loss of rights, and jail time. It’s felony stuff (state and maybe federal) on posted public property, like schools, courtrooms, post office, etc.
I sent a note to my State Representative also, asking about this issue. His predecessor taught my CHL class, and would be all over this, but I don’t know the new guy very well yet.
quote————–Concealed carriers have long said if property owners don’t allow them to carry on their property, then those property owners should be held liable if people are attacked on it and can’t protect themselves.——-quote
These Far Right Nut cases do not realize that if a business owner allows concealed carry that they could be sued by a customer that was accidentally shot by another customer that was carrying a gun. This is far more likely to happen than a customer being shot by a criminal when in the store.
Citations, please.
jwm, he doesn’t have any. The dunce just spews diarrhea from his mouth to see what will stick to the wall. The only reason I read his comment is because I just finished reading Shadow Country and there’s not much on TV. I’ll start another book tomorrow then there’s no need to read the dweeb. Lol 😂
wow. that cut the trilogy down 400 pages, mostly from the second tome. you might want to read lost man’s river to see what he culled.
i am intrigued, thanks for mentioning. if i might, i just finished dead wake. alternate chapters life on the lusitania and life on unterseeboot 20. man did some research, boy howdy.
To Jethro the Janitor
Citations? My own lifelong experiences, douchebag, I have had HillJacks numerous times have accidental discharges around me but never once was I attacked or robbed by a criminal. That’s all the evidence I need.
Try again High School Dropout you failed.
hahaha, your own douchebag to flush off the accidental discharges tossed onto you, although i’m sure we could substitute deliberate for accidental.
twerp loser.
So you have literally nothing Jerry?
The irony of “gun free zones” is that they are (i) generally ineffective against those we NEED to be wary of, and (ii) unneeded against those we have no reason to be wary of. But I have to acknowledge that there is a certain element in our society, marked by their membership in the halls of power and privilege, who DO fear honest, independent, armed citizens MORE than they fear thugs and criminals (perhaps an element of professional courtesy, for those types??).
And that last sentence, and the truth of it, should tell you everything you need to know about our “leaders”, eh??
Who owns the Post Office?
Oh thank you, thank you, thank you. I believe if you live in a state where permit and/or permitless carry is legal, if a business or a place place of employment, by there policies doesn’t allow you you carry your legally owned firearm and you get shot. They are held liable and should be sued into oblivion.
No way this bill passes through committee, much less becomes law, as it is drafted.