Tennessee doing what all states should do.
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/28/want-a-gun-free-zone-tennessee-says-thats-on-you-literally/
>>30465972
>MFW
This is bad ass.
>>30465972
Fucking beautiful. I want this in Georgia.
Completely unenforceable, no way it stands up to judicial review.
We hate it when anti-gunners do stupid shit, we should have the same view when our guys do it.
>>30466555
Here's your reply, now troll the fuck off somewhere else.
>>30465972
>no one read the article
>no one looked at the bill
>ON MARCH 16, 2016, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 1736, AS AMENDED.
>AMENDMENT #1 rewrites this bill to provide immunity from civil liability to a person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by positing under present law, with respect to any claim based on the person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt such a policy. This amendment will not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
>>30466580
sounds like pretty reasonable legal protection against frivolous unjust lawsuits
>>30466555
Except this law has been in other states since 2008.
>>30466613
Such as?
>>30466580
that basically means that you aren't liable if you post that and then have armed guards and shit. If your guards get taken out, you can't be sued, because you tried to protect the people.
>>30465972
Obviously this doesn't affect federal no-gun zones
But how does this affect banks?
>>30466638
> gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct
That's fairly open to interpretation. A good lawyer might save you there
>>30465972
>i support the individual right to bear arms
>individual property rights be damned, the government knows whats best
Fuck that.
While i agree with the spirit behind this law, it is wrong. If i own a business and dont want anyone else bringing guns in, thats my right. If freedom-loving Americans disagree, theyll take their money to more deserving businesses.
>>30467981
Your wanton attitude for the lives of your customers should be the deciding factor, I agree. I would rather your property be to your own volition. However, this law isn't saying you can't disallow guns on your premise, but you must need take some precaution fir the patrons safety in the absence if their right to defend themselves adequately- i.e. You must indeed be responsible for your property while others are guests upon it.
>>30468036
Again, why? Its my property, and i do what i want on my property. I agree that some measure should be taken to protect customers from very real, preventsble threats: no exposed wires, crumbling walls, gas leaks, etc. but we talk time and time again in gun control threads that shootings are a literal non-issue in the U.S. Plus, i may ban guns on my property to protect my customers, since in this scenario im a nu-male who thinks those automatic assault pistols can go off if someone bumps against a wall, and the federal government seems to agree that this is a protection measure (no guns in post offices, parks).
Another thing to consider: what if my customers are also nu-males and dont want to be around guns? This is the same argument for smoking in bars. I agree with lawmakers that smoking is fucking stupid and second hand smoke is dangerous. However, if i have my private bar and want to allow patrons to smoke, why shouldnt they be able to? if someone doesnt like it, they can go to a non-smoking bar.
All these laws do is force businesses to cater to a certain population and discriminate against another. Again, i think we agree that this law does more good than bad, its just against the principles this country was founded on.
>>30466555
Checked faggot
>>30468234
But that's just. You can ban guns on your property.
You just need to take responsibility for it. Provide your own protection or be ready to answer for the lack of it.
>>30467981
>If i own a business and dont want anyone else bringing guns in, thats my right
>Your rights end where my feelings begin.
You are one of them.
>>30465972
This is literally the perfect law for this.
It allows private property to still disallow firearms if they chose, but makes them liable for their patrons safety and well being as a consequence.
It's the perfect compromise of private property and gun rights in my opinion.
>>30467981
If you disallow patrons to effectively defend themselves, that implies you have some responsibility to ensure their health and well being.
>>30468234
>It's my property! I can make it as dangerous as I want and escape all the consequences!!!!
You obviously know nothing about property ownership, you fucking dumbshit.
When someone slips on the ice in front of your house, and you get your house sued out from under you, I suggest you don't just keep screaming "It's my property! It's my right to have ice all over the place!" when the judge keeps saying "Yes, it IS your property, you fucking tard, which is why YOU are liable."
>>30465972
Not many of you actually read this....
>>30468975
THIS
H
I
S
>>30469014
And you clearly didn't read the thread
>>30468234
While I agree with you, surely you realize that strict interpretations of the documents this country was founded on has been eschewed in favor of populist, pandering, bullshit.
The only way to win in US politics is to be an irrational extremist, it's disgusting; but it's the way it is.
>>30465972
Goddamn I love my state
only mid and east tho, Memphis/west can get fucked. also Nashville is getting a lot of transplants judging by license plates I see in downtown so hopefully those cucks will assimilate
>>30468234
>its just against the principles this country was founded on.
personal responsibility is against the principles this country was founded on? Which country are you from? North Korea? Venezuela?
ITT: Faggots who either need to be coddled by their government or faggots who are ok with tyranny as long as they agree with it.
>>30468916
If I allow smoking on my property do I need to answer for lung cancer in visitors? If I serve fatty food, should I take responsibility for their obesity? What if I don't get cell signal your mother calls since you're out past curfew? my fault?
>>30468934
no, your rights end where my rights begin. You have a right to free speech as well, but if you're shouting "hang all the niggers" in my store and I ask you to leave, you bet I have a right to kick you out. Shout that all you want on public property.
>>30468961
really? how so? that is their responsibility and they voluntarily took that risk when they came onto my property
>>30468975
YOU are what is wrong with this country right now. Idiots do stupid shit and then find out who owns the land they did it on so they can get a quick payday. Like i said in my previous post, I believe there should be regulations on things that present a clear and present danger, such as a slippery walkway or an unsafe building. Gun crime is a non-issue in the U.S. Again, your government would be doing its citizens more good to outlaw smoking or fatty foods in businesses. Additionally, I have cacti in front of my house. If someone decides to come on to my property to look at them and then falls in, am I responsible for that? maybe the government should force everyone with assault cacti on their property to have 5 foot high fences around them.
>>30469199
You are absolutely right and it makes me sad.
There are a lot of oppressive laws like this one that will do good for our country. I guess I'm still an idealist though and want to maintain as much freedom as possible
>>30469235
>the government telling me what I should do with my property is personal responsibility
no, having the choice to be an idiot but then not forcing others to pay for your idiocy is personal responsibility
(1/2)
>>30469718
reminder that you need a licence to drive a car and you should need a licence to use a gun.
(this guy shouldn't do either)
>>30469718
>boo hooker I'm a huge faggot who doesn't know shit
>>30468916
>>30468934
>>30468961
>>30468975
>>30469235
What you niggers are also forgetting is that the danger is (or should be) clearly marked on my property. DIsney recently went through some shit because that kid got eaten by the alligator NOT because there were gators on DIsney property, but because there was no sign warning of the danger, so people can't make informed decisions. Again, certain things should be regulated by the government because it's silly to have a million signs on a door that noone in their right mind would agree to deal with
>DANGER Asbestos inside
>DANGER Frequent gas leaks
>DANGER Foundation collapsing
However, the less regulation the better and there are certain risks people are willing to take. Allowing smokers into your establishment means others assume the responsibility of risking going inside and being exposed to second hand smoke. Having a gun free zone sign means customers know they are disarmed, and they assume the responsibility when they take the risk of disarming themselves. If, for some reason, a patron is not informed of the risk they are taking and they suffer because of it, sue the owner into oblivion for all i care. They deserve it for misleading the public.
Hopefully >>30469235 gets that this is personal responsibility: assuming responsibility for the risks you take. Idiots taking risks and then having the property owner pay up when they suffer the consequences is not.
(2/2)
>>30468234
If you irresponsibly manage your property and someone comes to harm you're already potentially liable in civil or criminal court.
This changes nothing other than to extend such protections to citizens who are denied free exercise of their rights by property owners.
It really doesn't change all that much, you're just as free to do as you will and damn near just as responsible for those on your property as were before.
I entirely fail to see how this harms property owners.
>>30469771
>bootlicker confirmed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania
In case you're too busy sucking the government's dick to read, here's the gist of it
>The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people
I haven't thought enough about driving to know if it's a fundamental right, but guns sure as hell are. So I may need a license in my commie state, but it should not be the case. Sorry it bothers you that someone with a differing political opinion has the same rights as you. Maybe you should go to a communist country where you can suppress such free thought!
>>30469805
>namecalling in response to an argument
>liberal
pick two
Refuting my points with logic and well-thought arguments would really make this more interesting
>>30469936
Hey kudos man! Best argument ive seen so far for this law. Youre right this management is irresponsible and stripping peoples rights, and its different than other rights, say free speech, in that stripping you of this right actually puts you in danger. I think what it really comes down to is informed consent, and thats because theres so many reasons an owner may not want guns on his property. Certain sects of buddhism and christianity, for example, detest all forms of violence, even self defence. Facilitating this violence of self defence (by allowing people to carry the tools to do so) may go against the property owners religion. Is it stupid? Yes. Should they be forced to go against their religion on their own property? Hell no. Thats where the informed consent comes in. The pacifist posts a sign on his door basically saying "youre a sitting duck in here" and then the customer chooses to accept that risk and temporarily give up their right for his service.
I do a lot of climbing, so ill use it as another example. Lets say i go to some gym that doesnt allow belaying because all the members are amazing free climbers. I would see that and say "naw fuck that" and leave. I wouldnt want to take that risk. Other people who are actually good at climbing may be ok with that and freeclimb. When they break their back it was their risk that caused it and they are the ones responsible.
>>30470485
>Should they be forced to go against their religion on their own property? Hell no.
I think you're absolutely correct there, assuming I understand this legislation correctly they should not be and are not really being forced to do so if it violates their beliefs. It's ultimately at their discretion as to whether or not they will take preventative action regarding a possible liability or what exactly those measures would entail.
If someone were to harm a congregation of Quakers it would take a real scumbag to violate the beliefs of their loved one(s) for profit and it wouldn't seem a stretch to provide, nor would I disagree with, exceptions being made to protect legitimate religious places of worship from liability based upon their tenants.
A public access business/property/what have you however should not be immune just because its owner is religious and has a shrine in his office or thinks guns are bad. Seems like a potential can of worms to write but an amendment that protected religious rights should have been included.
Back more on topic though.
Rock climbing perhaps is a bad analogy. I play paintball and if a facility declared no masks were allowed, similarly I would say "fuck this," and go home. Both are a little apples to oranges and I don't think any legal waiver would possibly hold up in court for long when the business is deliberately creating an unnecessarily unsafe environment for its patrons by denying them safe technique or safety gear.
tldr
Yes it's your choice most of the time to whom you give patronage but that rights free zone may be the only economical option for a person and it seems grossly inequitable to tell that person they may not use a weapon of self defense inside "but we are not responsible for preventable injury or death that we denied you the ability to prevent." I think that last statement is what it really it comes down to for me.
I don't have any legislation to back this up, just my personal view.
>>30471582
Ran out of space but I wanted to add that I'm sure given the religious rights in this country there are well established definitions of religious facilities that could have been used.
And that on the topic of rock climbing/paintball I have never seen an organization deny a patron the use of additional safety gear beyond the minimum, which is very much on topic.
>>30471582
>>30471606
Good points. It really does get into a gray area when youre talking about public access and religion and rights. The big problem with allowing for religious freedom is that literally anything can be considered a religion and literally anything can be a sin that the owner doesnt want to allow on his property. That amendment would pretty much make the law null. However, i believe that customers willing to do business with a nutjob have to agree to his terms since its his business. Yeah sometimes you may have no choice economically or situationally (i have yet to see a doctors office near me without a gun free zone sticker, and when i had to go in for my immunizations for school i was unarmed) but unfortunately sometimes youre stuck without your rights. If youre a college student or have ever been one you know this is true. Very limited speech, no weapons, campus police can search your dorm on a whim, guilty til proven innocent if accused of anything, its literally a micro communist society where the school provides everything at the cost of your freedom. public schools, of course, should be forced to allow carrying.
A little off topic, but what did you think of that whole christian bakery and the gay cake? The courts ruled that not baking for the gay couple, even though the christians thought it would be a sin to do so, made them liable in the lawsuit. I got a LOT of shit defending the bakerys rights to refuse. (Again, gray area)
Yeah youre right none of our exampels are great because the whole thing is fuckin stupid. Theres no reason you shouldnt be able to belay, wear a mask, or carry your gun. But in america you have the right to be a stupid sack of shit.
Btw how did you get into paintball, ive always wanted to do some kind of "real" (not standing at a range) shooting to practice scenarios besides IDPA and 3 gun. Cant shoot at other people in those. Is it easy to find a group or leage? Or how does it even work? Initial cost to get in?
>>30472302
I think that bakery had the right to refuse them service and that really should have been the end of it however petty it was to do so. If you choose to discriminate against people for ideological or racial reasons as a business these days it tends to come back to you in scores. If you're a private business that doesn't provide essential services you are legally required to render, are willing to take that risk, and put your employees at risk for your convictions it should be your choice. Really though I don't see how baking a cake for homos is a sin, it's not like they were somehow aiding and abetting homosexuality, as if they would have been convinced it was the right path with a cake or would have renounced their ways for lack thereof. Just a stupid situation in general.
All you really have to do is look for fields in your area, maybe bring a few friends with if you're so inclined. Events and tournaments are going to vary by area. No clue on how to find groups other than asking around your local field or some googling.
There are a few different styles of play but most of it is either woodsball or speedball/hyperball style in the end. Some scenarios and tournaments impose different rules.
It can be as expensive or cheap as you want it to be to be really but as a baseline expect to pay: field fee, air or co2 for your marker, rental fee if applicable, and for paint, ~100 maybe less. Most fields only allow you to use paint purchased there, that's where most of their money is, paint tends to run $45-65 per 2k rounds.
You usually don't have to spend a lot of money anymore to get something reasonably better than a baseline rental, cheap and decent electro markers abound and older tournament level markers are easy to find.
Regardless of the gear or skill level, remember it only takes one hit to eliminate you. I distinctly remember a whole bunch of rangers coming out and getting dumped on all day so don't be shocked if the regulars know how to play the game.
>>30465972
>As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
>>30472302
>>30473608
Just have fun because it's a game.
I wouldn't really go so far as to call it a training tool but you can use it to reinforce good movement and positioning habits and learn some vagaries such as the inherent slowness of coming over an obstacle to shoot at someone.
I got into it in early middle school at a friend's birthday party, just never stopped playing. Played competitively a little bit and did reasonably well but just going out and playing for the love of the sport is infinitely better than dealing with spoiled arrogant man children and children in the tournament scene. Been playing something like 14 years now. It's expensive but it's a lot of fun.
I'd really like to get into 3 gun and similar shooting sports eventually.
>>30469213
Mah nigga
>>30467981
I'm fine with a private business not receiving any government funding or loans being able to prohibit carry on their property.
But any public property like parks, schools, etc or institutions that received government funding should be required to post armed security if they prohibit concealed carry, or then be held liable for any expenses incurred as a result of creating a victim rich environment.
>>30465972
B A S E D
A
S
E
D
>>30473608
I think we're pretty close here. The hard part is where the line should be drawn between property rights and human rights. I can see where they're coming from, according to my faith I think baking the cake would be a sin since I would be taking part in an event that goes against my religion, so i would hope that I would have the right to avoid that. However, I will always be in support of gay marriage because I don't think my religion should get into the politics of this nation or affect someone's personal life. Another recent story was that county clerk in Louisiana I think? She was refusing gay marriage licenses based on her faith, but I'd say she has no right to do so since she worked for a public entity. Anyway, a bakery refuses to bake a cake, that's their right. it's then your right to boycott them (and my right to boycott businesses that are gun-free). Thank god Chick-fil-a actually makes a good product or i think that whole thing with their CEO disagreeing with homosexuality would have destroyed them, even though there was no discrimination.
Thanks for the info, I'll look around. I'm used to getting crushed at competitions so I'm definitely not expecting to be a hi-speed operator with a 4:1 KD or anything. just wanna get used to moving, shooting, taking cover, returning fire, etc.
>>30473763
Hey good to see someone else think that in this thread. I would argue though that with very few exceptions the majority of publicly funded areas shouldn't even have the ability to strip you of any rights, even if they have their own security.
>>30468916
>But that's just. You can ban guns on your property
>You just have to pay people to bring guns on your property :^)
