New Legislation

[Commander Keen]

why wahoo ? i didnt see that much change.

At the very least, the clarification of carry in a posted business. Plus, every little but helps.

 

[prather]

ok i see ..well YAHOOEY!!

 

[TallPrairie]

Yes. The posted businesses resolution (which clarifies a huge uncertainty, and makes our law resemble Missouri's excellent law on this topic) is particularly valuable.

 

[neginfluence04]

did firearms freedom act ever pass?

 

[tRidiot]

HB1622 - Allows private schools to develop policies which will allow carrying of firearms on school property and also eliminates "Meetings of government officials" from the prohibited places list.

SB173 - Allows for a temporary 6 month handgun license when applying for a handgun license if you have a protective order, requires businesses that don't want firearms in the building to post, clarifies that carrying past a posted sign may get you invited to leave and if not you can be charged with trespass, and provides for liability exemption for businesses that allow employees and patrons to carry firearms.
Both bills were signed by the governor and will take effect November 1 2013.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a HUGE win????

I mean, seriously, how many business owners have we heard about or from who have said they did not want to post GunBuster signs, but were threatened with significantly higher premiums or outright revocation by their insurance providers if they did not??? Doesn't this mean that with no excuse for "liability" insurance companies can no longer use this as a reason to hike premiums or pressure business owners to ban firearms on the premises?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

 

[hrdware]

Am I the only one who thinks this is a HUGE win????

I mean, seriously, how many business owners have we heard about or from who have said they did not want to post GunBuster signs, but were threatened with significantly higher premiums or outright revocation by their insurance providers if they did not??? Doesn't this mean that with no excuse for "liability" insurance companies can no longer use this as a reason to hike premiums or pressure business owners to ban firearms on the premises?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

The insurance companies could still threaten to do raise rates and do what they want. However if a business is sued (no matter if they post signs or not, liability exemption is actually given to every business), they won't have liability unless something happens that is considered gross negligence.

Ideally though, you are correct, no more insurance threats of higher premiums because carry is allowed by the business owner.

 

[Cinaet]

Am I the only one who thinks this is a HUGE win????

"...and provides for liability exemption for businesses that allow employees and patrons to carry firearms.

You're right. That is a big win.

 

[Defnestor]

I will appreciate the clarity. It will also help me determine which business do not want my custom. Although when I occasionally OC, no employee or manager has ever said anything to me about it.

 

[Sanford]

The insurance companies could still threaten to do raise rates and do what they want. However if a business is sued (no matter if they post signs or not, liability exemption is actually given to every business), they won't have liability unless something happens that is considered gross negligence.

Ideally though, you are correct, no more insurance threats of higher premiums because carry is allowed by the business owner.

And with that, does the opposite become true? In other words, can a business that refuses to allow carry be liable in a situation that otherwise might reasonably have been prevented had they allowed customers to be armed? Would be sort of interesting to hear arguments in a case like that ... "invited mayhem by publicizing itself as an easy target", "negligent by virtue of not availing itself of all reasonable options to protect its customers and/or employees" from harm, etc.

 

[hrdware]

And with that, does the opposite become true? In other words, can a business that refuses to allow carry be liable in a situation that otherwise might reasonably have been prevented had they allowed customers to be armed? Would be sort of interesting to hear arguments in a case like that ... "invited mayhem by publicizing itself as an easy target", "negligent by virtue of not availing itself of all reasonable options to protect its customers and/or employees" from harm, etc.

That was the idea behind the original bill, however it got watered down a the state senate decided liability exemption should be extended to all businesses for whatever decision they made regarding the carrying of firearms on their property.