Interesting new Tennessee law
- Thread starter wyomingosualum
- Start date
Finally. Common sense gun control.
I would think the "true" conservatives would be against infringing upon a private property owners ability to control their property as they see fit....which this certainly does. This doesn't balance the rights between the two, it tilts them in favor of the party that doesn't want to comply with the decisions of the property owner to control his property as he sees fit. Heck, even the article recognizes this by calling it a "pro-gin" law. This is just the opposite side of the coin of the "strict liability for gun manufacturers" coin that is clearly an "anti-gun" change in liability standards.
Premises liability is usually based upon hide defects and dangers on property. If a property owner clearly posts that it is a gun free zone, gun carriers are fully advised and are free not to proceed on that privately owned property or patronize that particular business. Let the market decide whether the property/business owner made the right decision. Either you're pro-government restricting rights of its citizens or your anti.
Premises liability is usually based upon hide defects and dangers on property. If a property owner clearly posts that it is a gun free zone, gun carriers are fully advised and are free not to proceed on that privately owned property or patronize that particular business. Let the market decide whether the property/business owner made the right decision. Either you're pro-government restricting rights of its citizens or your anti.
JD, I agree with you. But how does that balance with the recent trends forcing private business owners to provide services for things they disagree? example: the guys who lost a suit because they didn't make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
In a vacuum I'd agree with you. Neither should be required to serve someone they don't want. But until you rescind the latter, there's room for the prior.
In a vacuum I'd agree with you. Neither should be required to serve someone they don't want. But until you rescind the latter, there's room for the prior.
So if the gov't exceeds their authority in one situation that you disagree with, you're amenable to them doing it again in a situation you agree with? Is that what you are saying? I hope not?
I mean, I could get into a debate about immutable characteristics (like race, sexual orientation) vs the the carrying of a firearm and public accomodations etc, and try to make a fine distinction between the two, but in my opinion it's all a red herring.
I'm against government regulation impinging upon the property rights of businesses in both cases. I'm for letting the market decide the sagacity of the property owners decision in both cases. i would think that anyone that truly believes in limited government would be against both.
100% agree with you JD. I'm just saying that the state is reacting to an overreach in another area. Neither are right. But I can understand the reaction.
I'll point out that the "gay marriage cake" overreaches I've seen so far have been at the State or local level. If there has been federal EEOC actions like that, feel free to acquaint me with them. I don't think any of them have been in Tennessee either. Over-reaching and infringing on Tennessee property owners rights by the Tennessee legislature in reaction to overreach by other state's or municipalities that don't impact Tennessee citizens doesn't seem like a reasonable or particularly rational reaction to me.
