Missouri House Bill 96 is the kind of tort reform that gun owners could get behind. Stealing an idea suggested by Prof. Glenn Reynolds at the NRA convention in 2015, it would make businesses that ban firearms financially responsible for injuries from shootings that occur on their property. On Monday, the Show-Me State’s legislature heard testimony on that and several House gun bills, playing to a standing room only crowd.
Does this mean that Dan Zimmernan’s old home state is on the cusp of sensible gun reform? Unfortunately the sponsor of the bill is skeptical of its chances going forward. Rep. Nick Schroer remarked that the timing of the bill makes it unlikely to pass this year.
The likelihood of this passing through this (General Laws) committee, the next committee and then getting to the (House) floor with the priorities that we have and the bills that are coming over from the Senate, you know, common sense would state that it’s probably not going to pass this year.
If the bill passes, it would be the first of its kind in the country. In 2016, gun owners initially celebrated the passage of what was thought to be a similar law in Tennessee. But as Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins uncovered, last-minute legislative chicanery from Republican Representative Brian Kelsey changed the language of the bill and completely subverted its intent.
The Bloomberg-funded Astroturf organization styled “Moms Demand Action” testified against the bill, as did the Kansas City Chiefs. Stay tuned.
Kentucky or Tennessee has one moving too.
Sounds like a go-nowhere sop to gun owners. Even if such an unconstitutional monstrosity were ever to become and remain law, the even greater damage it would do is set a precedent for all gun owners to carry mandatory firearms liability insurance.
If they’re demanding that private property owners bear responsibility for actions of 3rd party criminals, then ut’s at least as reasonable to demand that gun owners bear financial responsibility for their potential negligence or criminal activity.
Sure, tort law already mandates that, but that’s hollow. A gun shot wound can cause very expensive damages to someone, damages so expensive that most people cannot afford to pay. The only remedy would be insurance payouts. Oh no! Insurance can’t cover an illegal act, nor does it cover, in most cases, intentional acts.
Going down this road could get problematic real fast. Better idea is just to avoid self-styled gun free zones and quit trying to transform dissatisfaction with the world’s every imperfection into an actionable form of legal liability.
I agree with much of what you said about this possibly leading to gun owners’ insurance. But I would argue that when a 3rd party disarms me that makes them a party to violence portrayed against me. Very seriously. You take away my gun, he stabs me during a robbery. Do you really believe you hold no responsibility for my degraded self defense ability?
I don’t care if you colluded with the attacker. A legally enforced “gun free” zone still limited any and all victim(s) ability to defend themselves from an attack.
I’m really curious how you get to “unconstitutional” here….
Oh, that’s easy!
1. Do you disagree with a policy vehemently?
2. Do you want to shut people up instead of debating deeply?
Call it unconstitutional!
Bonus points if you’re a conservative who holds extra special reverence for the constitution, as it’s like the conservative equivalent of calling someone a racist.
Unconstitutional is a stretch.
If you deny a person the right to defend themselves than you are, in effect, taking responsibility to protect them. All this law would do is put teeth to the liability.
You may not like the law, domino effect and all, but still not seeing how its unconstitutional.
How does denying someone the right to self defense (with a firearm) translate to taking the responsibility to defend them? Just don’t see the connection. Quite frankly there are many places in this country where people are not permitted to defend themselves with firearms. The courts have ruled more than once, that the police have no obligation to protect you. If the police don’t have that obligation why would anyone else?
Well yeah, you can’t have responsibility without accountability.
If you prevent me from being able to protect myself, it’s obvious you are either taking that responsibility on or you are simply putting me in harms’ way.
No, it’s freedom of contract. Nobody is “preventing” you from protecting yourself, except you. Don’t like a private property owner’s policy? Fine. Then don’t go there and subject yourself to those policies.
Nobody is “putting you in harm’s way”, either. What harm? You don’t know for a fact that harm will befall you just because you entered someone’s gun free zone. That’s not a foreseeable event. If you think you can foresee it, then once again, don’t go to that place and don’t put yourself in harm’s way.
Gotta love those Second Amendment absolutists: they’re absolutely certain that their rights trump everyone else’s, even private property owners.
Here’s brain teaser for you. Would you still apply this property liability law to shops run by the Amish, who don’t believe in this technology, or by Buddhists, who are nonviolent? How do you reconcile your alleged right to carry everywhere, even on someone else’s private property, with their freedom of religion?
Being the lovers of freedom and liberty that we are here – many of us would agree with you. Business owners are perfectly within their rights to discriminate against gun owners, blacks, hispanics, women, muslims, jews, asians, irish redheads and homosexuals…. wait, they’re not? Oh, well take your money elsewhere anyway.
I see your argument about avoiding places that require disarmament. That is a valid one up to a point. What if all grocery stores nearby are “gun free”. Does that mean I should have to drive an hour or two to the next town just to buy food for my family? What if it’s the only Hotel or restaurant in the town?
BLoving makes a very valid argument. When restaurants wouldn’t serve black people, the argument that blacks could just go to another restaurant was deemed invalid and unconstitutional. Why would that logic only apply to some things and not others?
I gotta say though BLoving. Discrimination against redheads should be encouraged. Those soul sucking abominations shouldn’t get to eat in the same restaurant as me.
It’s OK, Tim.
Send all the female gingeets to me. 🙂
(Redheads – easily angered, but quite tasty…)
I agree with only one thing that you’ve said- that these kinds of laws won’t go anywhere.
However, there is no connection between assigning liability to shops that demand their customers disarm, and mandatory insurance for carriers. Furthermore, the leftists do want that, and will continue to push for it regardless of any other laws. It would make carrying prohibitively expensive, and only available to the wealthy- like a poll tax for voting. The leftists would love it, and will fight for it and every other creative way to disarm people no matter what. Always and forever.
Also, your “freedom of contract” perspective has problems, as it’s not based on reality. There is no pure freedom of contract in the US, period. You may wish that to be true, but it’s not. With every contract, there are regulations involved. By and large, they are designed to protect the “little guy.” You may find that unconstitutional, but the courts don’t. If a store disables their smoke alarms and blocks their fire exits, the owner will be subject to liability (and fines for code violations as well as loss of occupancy license), even if a sign is posted saying “enter at your own risk- not liable for injury or death by fire.” Those consequences are a serious impediment to the store owner’s freedom of contract, but society doesn’t cry about it too much. Lending regulations, employment laws, and yes, retail regulations, all impose heavily on the freedom of contract. Have you spoken out on ALL of these regulations?
What say you on consumer protection laws? If an auto manufacturer knows that a car is unsafe, and will lead to many deaths when a defective part fails, they shouldn’t have liability, right? Freedom of contract, everybody willingly bought the car, so let ’em burn, yes? Child labor laws need to be repealed, too, and you’re pushing for it, right?
The goal of this type of law is not to make store owners pay damages, it’s to discourage them from imposing their political views on their customers. “Take your business elsewhere” may not work if every store in an area has the sign. What then?
And we all know that it’s unconscionable that stores must open their doors to every race, and that they can’t have separate water fountains, as the law imposes on their God-given freedom of contract, right?
A better law might give some protection from liabilty for stores who don’t post the signs. In any case, it’s a regulatory issue (and retailers face a lot of regulations) and not a contract issue. The contract only involves an exchange of currency and merchandise at a register.
While I dont’t know the laws in Missouri, Texas makes it a criminal offense to carry in a business that has the proper signs posted. Was a M/A, now a M/C. Criminalizing what you see as a contract dispute. Have you campaigned against this law, as it brings the weight of the criminal justice system down on one party in the oh-so-sacred right to contract? If not, why not?
Maybe there’s a common sense middle ground here… Maybe stores should be focused on competing for a customer’s business, and not fixating on what’s in their customers waistbands. Stores dont pay for things that aren’t their fault, stores get more business, and license holders don’t have to reduce their safey by disarming. Reasonable people would be happy.
This law advances that solution.
Interesting concept except im not sure it exists.
If I post a sign that says, “No Blacks Allowed”, they are likewise free not to enter, except that ol pesky constitutional (or rather the interpretation) says, I can’t do that.
How is my posting a sign that says you cant’ exorcise your 2nd amendment rights in my store, any different than me posting a sign that says you may not exercise you 14th amendment rights under the civil rights act, and be in my store?
I don’t have issue if a business asks me to leave because they notice me carrying and they want to exercise their private beliefs.
But they do not have the right to criminalize me for exercising a Constitutionally enumerated right.
I don’t expect said business to follow the laws of the land and tolerate me because they are hoplophobes. But I do expect them to respect the law of the land.
HB 630 is the better bomb mostley publich transport (removed bus felony and train misdeamor)
https://openstates.org/mo/bills/2017/HB630/
About property rights for me your car is your castle and nobody can ban gun”s inside !!
“with the priorities that we have…”
One wonders what it would take for 2nd Amendment supporters to ever be a priority for republicans.
Comments are closed.