Missouri: Gun-Free Businesses May be Held Liable

[Acer-m14]

Gun Free Businesses in Missouri May Need Better Attorneys if This Bill Passes

In Missouri, newly elected Representative Nick Schroerhas introduced a bill which would hold establishments posted as “gun-free” accountable for any injuries as a result of a law-abiding citizen being disarmed.

 

[Phauxtoe]

Even if they hire a mall cop!

 

[spat]

Gun Free Businesses in Missouri May Need Better Attorneys if This Bill Passes

In Missouri, newly elected Representative Nick Schroerhas introduced a bill which would hold establishments posted as “gun-free” accountable for any injuries as a result of a law-abiding citizen being disarmed.

About GD time.

 

[Deplorable Me]

Wonder if that applies to gubbermint locations and buildings?

 

[Darth]

Stupid and wrong.

Again taking the focus away from the only one responsible. The CRIMINAL!

 

[swilliams]

Stupid and wrong.

Again taking the focus away from the only one responsible. The CRIMINAL!

Yes, still the criminal's fault, but at least you have the option of carrying or getting paid. Not such a bad thing.

 

[Saltwater60]

Here in NYS these signs have no power of law so I carry anyway. I don't care about their signs. Only thing they can do is ask you to leave. If they do so just say sorry I did not see the sign in leaving. No arguing, no pro 2 a statement or its trespassing or harassment.

 

[Darth]

Yes, still the criminal's fault, but at least you have the option of carrying or getting paid. Not such a bad thing.

No, what you get as a business owner, is the "option" to allow what you want in your place of business, but if you don't tow the line, we'll sue your ass!


No thanks.

 

[Phauxtoe]

Self protection is a human right, business owners can't take that away from you. giving them the option to say no to gun owners would be akin to saying no to French speaking people
If you're open to the public, you're open to the public

 

[Darth]

Self protection is a human right, business owners can't take that away from you. giving them the option to say no to gun owners would be akin to saying no to French speaking people
If you're open to the public, you're open to the public

You're a private business.

I don't need to bake the cake for the gay people, I don't need to allow guns in my store, and you don't need to shop there.

 

[nortatoga]

As much as I hate saying this * Darth is Right * !!

 

[SigLady]

Here in NYS these signs have no power of law so I carry anyway. I don't care about their signs. Only thing they can do is ask you to leave. If they do so just say sorry I did not see the sign in leaving. No arguing, no pro 2 a statement or its trespassing or harassment.

I was thinking the same thing... outside of federal buildings a "no guns" sign is just a suggestion (well, legally anyway.) Or is that just in kooky NY?

Either way, now that the CT supreme court gave the green light for the sandy hook families to sue bushmaster and remington the 2A landscape is going to get really interesting. This is just one iteration...

 

[BerettaGuy]

Former Navy SEAL, Founder of The Mission Continues, Husband, Father, and Governor-Elect of Missouri posted:

Tonight, my wife Sheena—the mother of my two boys, and the future First Lady of Missouri—was robbed at gunpoint not far from our home.
She is safe—but shaken. We are grateful for the men and women of law enforcement. Their response was swift and skilled, and we thank God for their presence tonight.

Eric Greitens | Facebook

Constitutional Carry vs the Fake News of Hands Up Don't shoot? Missourian's are fed up.
Wife of Gov.-elect Greitens robbed at gunpoint in Central West End

 

[Phauxtoe]

You're a private business.

I don't need to bake the cake for the gay people, I don't need to allow guns in my store, and you don't need to shop there.

So you're OK with a business asking Chinese people to leave their business because their Chinese?

I don't have a problem with the Baker turning down someone who wants a giant penis cake but I do have a problem with the Baker not selling a cake to someone because they're gay

 

[spat]

Stupid and wrong.

Again taking the focus away from the only one responsible. The CRIMINAL!

I have to disagree with you here. If the business owner prohibits you from defending yourself, they assume the responsibility for your defense. If they fail, it's on them.

 

[spat]

So you're OK with a business asking Chinese people to leave their business because their Chinese?

I don't have a problem with the Baker turning down someone who wants a giant penis cake but I do have a problem with the Baker not selling a cake to someone because they're gay

I don't have a problem with a business owner turning anyone down for any reason they want.

But if you are going to require me to take off my shoes, you assume a higher standard of care for your floor than a business that doesn't. This is the same thing. If I walk into bobs bait shop barefoot and get some horrible foot fungus, it's my problem. If he makes me take off my shoes, then he has assumed a greater responsibility for the quality of his floor, and can now be held responsible for my funky feet.

 

[Phauxtoe]

I believe if you open your doors to the public, you open your doors to the public

Reasonable rules apply!
( being gay or Chinese or whatever as a reason for non-service is not reasonable)

 

[SigLady]

So you're OK with a business asking Chinese people to leave their business because their Chinese?

I don't have a problem with the Baker turning down someone who wants a giant penis cake but I do have a problem with the Baker not selling a cake to someone because they're gay

I think the difference is that a person being chinese isn't an issue of moral conscience.

Do you notice that this "not serving gay people" thing seems to be limited to the wedding industry? You don't hear about it in relation to bars, restaurants, coffee shops, shoe stores. That's because it has nothing to do with gay people themselves (which some would argue is just as genetic as being chinese or black or white.) It has to do with the service provider's religious convictions regarding the sanctity of marriage specifically, which IS an issue of moral conscience.

Just like an OB/GYN can't be forced to perform abortions, religious employers can't be forced to provide contraception as part of their healthcare plan, and pharmacists can't be forced to dispense the day after pill if it contradicts their religious belief system, likewise florists and bakers shouldn't be forced to provide a service for an event that violates their moral beliefs. There are plenty of bakeries out there that support gay marriage- go to one of them instead of using Political Correctness to bully religious people and push the liberal agenda.

Again, it has nothing to do with gay people or chinese people or orange people or purple people, it has to do with the moral issues presented by gay marriage.

Just a other reason the far left despises people of faith... they have a different moral standard and don't blindly go along with the liberal bill of goods that so many people buy into hook, line, and sinker.

In short, they're a pain in the socialist agenda's butt.

 

[capitalcrew]

My biggest issue with the whole baking a cake for a gay couple boils down to the gay couple.. move on and find another baker. I mean really, who cares? I'll be first to stand with them and fight for something real, like marriage equality, but it's a cake. Someone else can make you one.

 

[swilliams]

I have to disagree with you here. If the business owner prohibits you from defending yourself, they assume the responsibility for your defense. If they fail, it's on them.

That's how I look at it. It's not about telling them that they must allow it, it's telling them that if they deny you the right to carry (to defend yourself in a constitutionally protected manner), that they take responsibility for your safety while you're in their shop.

 

[Cooolone]

If a business cannot discriminate against color, or sexual preference (not a RIGHT), or religion, how then do they have the ability to be prejudicial against those exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights?

All RIGHTS shall suffer the SAME scrutiny, "STRICT" or they are not RIGHTS but conveniences, dispensed to the masses on whims!

 

[BerettaGuy]

Question why Second Amendment people are expected now to forego their Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights by forcing a "background check".
What is next?
What does infringed mean to you?
Anti Second Amendment issues should be a Hate Crime, or at least a treasonous act against the Constitution.

The Gay Wedding Cake thing was a sham and purposely created by the Gay Mafia for exploitation. Moot point.

 

[Podmonkey]

Stupid and wrong.

Again taking the focus away from the only one responsible. The CRIMINAL!

You have a point with the second part of your statement. However there is ample precedent of commercial properties being held responsible for public saftey through things like building codes fire codes, fire alarms and suppression equipment. I view "gun free zones" in the same light: a public safety hazard.

 

[meketrefe]

What about holding NYS liable if any of our kids gets harmed at school or campus due to the stupid useless gun free zones?
We cannot have a gun free zone w/o a secured perimeter and a good example is airport or a courthouse.
So our kids have less rights than fellow travelers or people working in the court?
We need to ask trump to pass a law to transfer liabilities to individuals who vote for certain policies might get people in
government fired w/o possibility to hold office again due to absurd laws that should have been trashed.
we are not talking about a raise in highway tolls or more funds for animal rescue. We are talking about something
that is designed to get people killed.