New Bill Provides Legal PROTECTIONS for Concealed Carry Holders in ‘Gun-Free’ Zones

Gun-Free

A common critique of those who demand the right to carry a weapon into stores which ban them is, “You can just do your shopping elsewhere.” But considering the political narrative surrounding concealed carry and the fearmongering conducted by anti-Second Amendment groups to pressure stores into denying patrons their civil rights, such an argument is laughable as shoppers should not have to choose between getting their shopping done and staying protected against the psychos of the world.

Stores which ban shoppers from exercising their human right to aid their own self-preservation may soon find themselves in financial difficulties if patrons are harmed from being barred from defending themselves. A new bill introduced in Tennessee seeks to protect customers from discriminatory store policies by insisting that in stores where firearms are disallowed and someone is injured, that store may be civilly liable for damages.

Sponsored by Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, Senate Bill 1736 allows any concealed carry permit holder to sue in the event of injury or death if such an event occurred in a “gun-free” zone.

“It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property,” the bill states.

The bill requires property owners to provide for protection of gun owners against “invitees,” trespassers and employees as well as animals and “defensible man-made and natural hazards.”

In short: if a concealed carrier who had been disallowed the use of his firearm is injured by a threat that could have been neutralized by a firearm, the property owner is civilly liable.

The bill provides certain stipulations for bringing suit:

The plaintiff had to be authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident.

The plaintiff was prohibited from carrying a firearm because of the gun-free sign.

The policy was not required to be posted by state or federal law but was posted by choice of the defendant.

Those without gun permits are ineligible for such civil protections.

Though the anti-Second Amendment crowd is likely to protest, such unfortunate litigation has become necessary as 92% of all mass shootings since 2009 have occurred in so-called “gun-free” zones.

Routinely, Americans are placed in a position where they must decide whether to run afoul of regulations, the law, or both, or disarm and leave themselves vulnerable to those who prey upon so-called “gun-free” zones, armed with the knowledge that those within such zones are defenseless.

It is a strange turn of events that a baker who politely refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding is victimized by the Department of Justice and civil courts, but entire corporations can discriminate against those who possess an actual constitutionally-protected right to bear arms.

About the Author

Greg Campbell
Greg Campbell
An unapologetic patriot and conservative, Greg emerged within the blossoming Tea Party Movement as a political analyst dedicated to educating and advocating for the preservation of our constitutional principles and a free-market solution to problems birthed by economic liberalism. From authoring scathing commentaries to conducting interviews with some of the biggest names in politics today including party leaders, activists and conservative media personalities, Greg has worked to counter the left’s media narratives with truthful discussions of the biggest issues affecting Americans today. Greg’s primary area of focus is Second Amendment issues and the advancement of honest discussion concerning the constitutional right that protects all others. He lives in the Northwest with his wife, Heather, and enjoys writing, marksmanship and the outdoors.
JOIN POLITISTICK
Subscribe for FREE today
to stay in the loop!

Send this to friend