Gun Free Zone Responsibility

Tennessee recently had a very, very good idea. Until politicians ruined it. Originally they had a great gun free zone responsibility bill. Originally it said if you disarmed a licensed concealed carry holder on your premises, you take responsibility for their safety since your policy prevented them from doing so. As well as the time they are traveling to you “Armed Criminals Welcome” zone. Your firearm is left in your car? They are responsible for your safety till you get back to your car. I love this idea. I’ve been told by businesses that their insurance company demands they post those signs. Ok, fine. Then when I am injured because I was defenseless, your insurance company can pay for my hospital stay and rehab.

Then politicians did what politicians do. They messed it up.


Senate Bill No. 1736*

House Bill No. 2033

1 by deleting all language after the enacting clause and substituting instead the following:


Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by adding the following as a new section:

(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting,pursuant to §39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person’s, business’s, or other entity’s failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to §39-17-1359.

(b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

So now if you can post your business and you don’t you are immune from liability. Ok, well, that’s better. Not the goal, but better.

But all these mass shootings have happened in gun free zones, including Wounded Knee which actually was the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, not Orlando.

The time has come for states to begin to pass actual, real, meaningful “Gun Free Zone” responsibility laws. You post a GFZ sign, you need to know what it means. People want to go home at night. Generally I try to stay out of businesses that have such signs, and I’d prefer to work in a place that doesn’t have one. But there are times one must. But the days of cavalierly posting a GFZ sign need to come to an end. You want responsibility for the safety of all these people? You’ve got it.


9 thoughts on “Gun Free Zone Responsibility”

  1. This was, initially, misreported everywhere because the bill retained the original name.

    TN is full of fudds, bless their little hearts. Since they spend their evenings yelling at the wrong thing (tv n*ws) I speak for them. I met with my state senator and my county commissioner Monday night. I’m pretty sure (smile) nobody in the room left without fully understanding that I want TN to go constitutional.

    Saw the Gun Owners vid earlier. Not sure if his booger hook is on the bang switch but it is inside the proximity (not on the rail) of the guard.

    James O’keefe may also enlighten and entertain.

  2. Gun Free Zones are not gun free, that’s because their so many shootings in them! Great idea, but criminals don’t pay any attention to laws.

  3. A friend knowing how I am, and what I am asked me tonight “WHY didn’t someone shoot the man?” He was referring to the latest terrorist attack in France. I told him the French are essentially a country of Gun Free Zones….They were all defenseless.

    A slightly more lighthearted, but less powerful video that I also like is But you gotta love the O’Keefe one too!

  4. This is one of those ideas that sounds great to a lot of people, but is really counterproductive. Each individual is actually responsible for their own life and safety. There isn’t any moral or even practical way to turn that around and make someone else responsible for anything but their own actions. This includes outright criminals, by the way.

    There is absolutely no reason to go into these GFZ places unarmed, even if you think you absolutely must go into them at all. Inconvenient at times? Sure. Dangerous, of course. More apt to actually need to defend oneself there, obviously. Might be discovered to be carrying? Sure, but the individual is pretty much in control of that too… up to the point where they have to shoot, of course… but even then. They can choose not to shoot if they can leave…

    And counting on someone else being responsible is like calling 911… it will only take effect, if it does, AFTER the fact… AFTER people are harmed. Not good enough.

  5. I cannot agree with this.

    It’s not that a business owner is denying you second amendment rights, it’s that he’s refusing to let you onto his property unless you meet certain conditions. Much as one might find those conditions ridiculous (or worse)…it’s HIS property. You don’t like his conditions…then don’t go there. You don’t have to go there; your desire for a Joe-Bob’s Hamburger doesn’t override his right not to sell you one if he doesn’t want to.

    (Government property is different; you often have no choice but to go there, and a government is supposed to respect the 2A and the right it protects…of course, that would involve a government that keeps within its proper limits, unlike the ones we have now.)

  6. Most of the business owners I’ve talked to (in my town anyway) have said they don’t like doing it, it’s their insurance company that forces them to. If insurance companies realize that disarming people makes them financially liable, then I would like to think they would have a change of position. I didn’t say heart. I think some post them partly from peer pressure, or mad mommies. It’s easy to give in on that when there’s nothing at stake. If it changes and there is? Again, I would hope for a change of position. But I could be overly optimistic. I do think it partly depends on WHY the owner posted.

  7. If those businesses aren’t happy with their insurance companies’ rules, they should find other insurance providers.

    Rights don’t “trump” each other; there is no right to use someone else’s property without their permission. And if their permission is contingent on you not possessing a firearm on that property, you have three options:

    1) You can decline to use the property; or

    2) You can use the property under the conditions specified; or

    3) You can trespass (a form of theft — you are stealing use/occupancy of someone else’s property).

    At no point is the property owner taking responsibility for your defense unless he has AGREED to do so.

    1. You said it much better than I did.

      In fact the best way to take choice 1 is to make it clear to them why they’re losing your business.

  8. I just throw this out there for thought. Hospitals? The effect on civilization if they are out of commission for one reason or another? Yeah…..that’s what makes them such an appealing target, GFZ is what makes them such an easy one. Not quite as easy as picking a different establishment to frequent, and like a gun, when you need one, you probably really need one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *