In case you guys don't know what this bill says...

"As introduced, establishes that if a person or entity posts to prohibit the possession of firearms on the property, the posting entity, for purposes of liability, assumes custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any handgun carry permit holder harmed while on the posted property. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13."


Basically if a business says you cannot carry there, they have a responsibility to protect you (a carry permit holder), and it opens up a possibility for a lawsuit if you are harmed. Spread the word to businesses and lets see if those signs start coming down.

While that was true of the bill as introduced, the bill as passed doesn't do that. It basically says that businesses aren't liable for mishaps regarding firearms if they don't post. This amendment replaced the original text.

Hmmm....This website didn't mention any changes and that is quite the change! Pretty much the opposite of what this bill says.

https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB1736/2015

not exactly the opposite. It sounds like it shields those that don't post from liability, thus leaving open the door to sue the places that do post. It's a watered down version for sure, but not opposite.

opposite in the sense of taking the aim from a carry permit holder and/or harmed person's ability to go after a business:

"any handgun carry permit holder who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct occurring on property that is posted pursuant to 39-17-1359, shall have a cause of action agains the person or entity posting."

and stripping it down to a business being immune from civil action for not posting a sign.

It stripped a good bill into crap.

Would have been better to have just left the original statute alone.

I don't understand your point of view.

- If a biz posts, it can be held liable by a permit holder
- If a biz doesn't post, it can't be held liable by a permit holder (because the permit holder can pack)

What's so bad about that?

- OS

It is all about what the law states. The new wording removes all verbiage of responsibility for a posted business and being held responsible for injury. The new wording simply says they cannot be held responsible if they don't post a sign. I know you guys are reading into things not written, but this really changes nothing other than a business cannot be held liable if not posted and you don't protect yourself. The other wording was much more thorough at assigning law to being able to file a grievance for an injury and the new wording changes nothing for someone injured in a place with a sign posted.

Well, after re-re-reading it, I do believe you are right.

- OS

Sounds a lot better now after this post