Constitutional Carry!

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Cowcatcher

Unarmed boating accident survivor
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
6,171
Reaction score
13,853
Location
Inola
It passed Senate committee!
IMG_3929.PNG
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
13,438
Reaction score
13,855
Location
Norman
I think that is the position those businesses assume as well. Not responsible for any criminal activity involving guns if they post the property.
FWIW, the guy who taught my SDA class (not long after the SDA passed) was an administrator at a hospital. He said that their legal counsel had reviewed it, and found that they could be held liable for injuries if they posted "no carry" because by depriving a citizen of his ability to defend himself they assumed responsibility for the person's safety.

He said they decided to go ahead with posting despite this, because they employed professional security personnel to mitigate the risk.
 

Aries

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
5,538
Reaction score
8,098
Location
Sapulpa
FWIW, the guy who taught my SDA class (not long after the SDA passed) was an administrator at a hospital. He said that their legal counsel had reviewed it, and found that they could be held liable for injuries if they posted "no carry" because by depriving a citizen of his ability to defend himself they assumed responsibility for the person's safety.

He said they decided to go ahead with posting despite this, because they employed professional security personnel to mitigate the risk.

Hmmm.... doctor's offices seem to be the most likely place you'll see a no guns sign, but unless it's a bigger clinic or hospital, smaller offices almost never have security guards that I've seen?
 

OKCHunter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
4,526
Reaction score
4,425
Location
Edmond
FWIW, the guy who taught my SDA class (not long after the SDA passed) was an administrator at a hospital. He said that their legal counsel had reviewed it, and found that they could be held liable for injuries if they posted "no carry" because by depriving a citizen of his ability to defend himself they assumed responsibility for the person's safety.

He said they decided to go ahead with posting despite this, because they employed professional security personnel to mitigate the risk.

That makes sense to me. I know many of the businesses that prohibit firearms, my company as well, do it because the insurance company requires it. We have gotten around it by our policy stating “without authorization”. Loosely interpreted, a concealed carry permit is authorization.

I wish the insurance companies could be held liable for the safety of building occupants if they require a company to post no firearms or have a policy against firearms in the workplace. I imagine they would quit that nonsense if the liability was transferred to them. At that point it would be the sole decision of the property owner to post or not post.
 

CHenry

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
21,157
Reaction score
12,664
Location
Under your bed
Any one have an idea of a "normal" time delay if there is one for this to get on the Senate docket?
Delays usually occurs because of house or senate committee amendments. That didnt happen in either committee this time. They could hold a senate vote as early as monday. Unlikely to be tomorrow and they are adjourned on Fridays.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom