Interesting Development in Tennessee

[CalebDor]

The folks in Tennessee are some wily ones. Check out what goes into effect tomorrow regarding Gun Free Zones.

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/2 ... literally/

I realize this may not have a snowballs chance in Hell of ever becoming the law of the land here in Virginia but can you imagine for a moment if it was?

Our brothers and sisters southwest of us are on to something methinks.

Be well each of you!

Caleb

[BlackKnight]

I read about this somewhere else today. It is only common sense since the property owner/manager is in my opinion accepting the liability for you safety should anything happen and you can not defend yourself or your family. Great job Tennessee.

[NewColonial]

Bearing Arms gets it wrong according to VCDL. See other thread. It's important that pro-gun people understand what the law actually does, rather than what we wish it did.

[wittmeba]

Here is the VCDL listing -- see no. 8

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

**************************************************
8. [TN] Tennessee passes bill against private gun-free zones, but the press gets the bill wrong
**************************************************

A bill signed into law in Tennessee has been misreported by the press (another surprise). The story and others say:

"As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.”

The trouble is that the bill was modified before it got passed and the modified bill does not work that way. It actually works by giving civil suit immunity to businesses that don’t ban guns. That’s not nearly as good. Here’s the key language in the bill that passed:

" (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. “

—

One of the incorrect articles:

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/2 ... literally/

or

http://tinyurl.com/hs9g2bw

https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/ ... FF010038B/