Let Cali do this own shit. Because TENNESSEE IS BRINGING THE HEAT
http://politicalcult.com/tennessee-pro-gun-law-gun-free-target-terrified/
Awesome.
Tennessee is a pretty good guy
>>30468250
Hot damn Tennessee
hell yeah Tennessee on not being a cuck state
>>30468250
I love my state
>>30468250
>That would be the largest Second Amendment victory we could ever hope for.
Aim low and you won't be dissapointed eh?
>>30468250
Based hillbillies, may the Kube bless them.
You're all delusional. This will never stand up to judicial review, and it shouldn't.
We hate it when the left passes shitty laws, we shouldn't celebrate when our side does.
>>30468506
>We shouldn't celebrate when our side does.
I bet you expect us to not burst into celebration when Feinstein croaks too, don't you?
>>30468506
>we shouldn't celebrate when our side does.
Yes we should, it shows them that we have the legislative power to curb stomp their idiocy and put a stop on their authoritarianism.
>>30468549
Oh, I'll be celebrating that. But this is a stupid law.
>>30468550
This is also authoritarian and pretty stupid.
>>30468250
Oh yes!!!!!!
>>30468550
There's nothing authoritarian about forcing business to respect the constitutional rights of its customers. In a constitutional democracy, everyone must obey the constitution, this country isn't a libertarian paradise where business and corporations are free to act as they see fit.
>>30468569
I don't see who it's authoritarian against. The people who hang those types of signs in the first place are likely the ones who vote for intrusive and unconstitutional laws.
But now there's grounds for a compromise. Liberals give up one of their stupid laws, Conservatives give up this (Which would probably never be enforced or needed).
It's just like that one law somewhere that said every home had to have a gun. It's not mean to be enforced. It's meant to send a message.
>>30468593
Their property, their rules. A CCer chooses to enter the business, no one is forcing them to shop there.
>>30468250
A thing of beauty
>>30468597
Yes, they are generally the authoritarian side, but in this case, they have a right to establish policy on their own property.
Taking away the right to run your business as you please is indeed authoritarian. The left does it all the time, but that doesn't make it right.
Let's not be like our enemies.
>>30468605
yes, but the idea is:
>State allows people to protect themselves
>Business strips people of the right
>It is now the onus of the business to protect those people that the business refuses to allow to protect themselves
>>30468593
>there is nothing authoritarian about curbing private property rights
sure thing, dipshit.
liberty has to be respected even when you don't like it.
>>30468624
Screw that. Fight fire with fire.
They want to bitch that a shop doesn't make someone a cake, then we can bitch that they won't let people carry guns (Which if doesn't right won't even be noticeable). Gun rights are always on the defensive, it's time for more stuff like this to be passed so it becomes a level playing ground.
Playing neutral or submissive has never worked and will never work.
>>30468628
No, because the private citizens are still making a decision to obey the rules set by the business and shop there. They must take responsibility for that decision.
>>30468649
That's literally my point, cockmonger.
>>30468649
They have a right to run their business as they please.
You don't have a right to shop at Starbucks, or any other business that doesn't allow guns. You do have a right to take your business elsewhere, and should.
>>30468652
That's the argument of a child.
If something is wrong for them to do, then it's wrong for us to do.
>>30468660
Bull.
.
.
.
Shit.
If the business doesn't allow people to defend themselves, then if those people are killed due to that business's policy to not allow people to defend themselves, then that business is liable for their deaths. It's their choice to take that liability on.
THE BUSINESS MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS POLICIES. FREEDOM AND LIBERTY COME WITH RESPONSIBILITY.
>>30468628
THIS
THIS
THIS
This is a philosophical victory. The idea here is that the State recognizes the fundamental human right to personal protection.
If you are going to deny someone their right to self defense, then you must take on the responsibility of their safety yourself. If you can't guard their safety, you have incurred a liability on yourself.
>>30468686
>They have a right to run their business as they please.
Exactly. Just because you have a constitutional right to bear arms doesn't mean you don't have to respect private property.
>>30468682
You said exactly the opposite, dickcheese.
>There's nothing authoritarian about forcing business to respect the constitutional rights of its customers
Except it is, because businesses are built on private property and you have to respect the owners decisions. If they tell you you can't wear hats inside, then you take your fucking hat off.
>>30468628
Wait.... What just happened in this comic. And why am I turned on?
>BTW....good for Tennessee. Fight them using their own rules since that's all they understand. All the liberal shits understand is lawsuits and bitterness and taking cheap shots. So fine. Fuck it.
>get me shot cause I can't fight back and it's your fault.
Why didn't anyone think of this before?
>>30468706
>respect private property
Of course they're welcome to ask me to leave.
But if they disarm me, then it is their job to ensure my personal safety. They don't have the right to arbitrarily negate my Constitutionally protected human rights without liability.
Not that guy, btw
>>30468686
I don't care if it's childish. It's been working for them.
They blame all gun owners every time something bad happens. It's now time to blame the people that turned their establishments into unopposed shooting ranges.
>>30468706
Wearing a hat isn't a fundamental human right protected by the Constitution
Im not sure what everyone is celebrating about, This bill was gutted in it's entirety a few days ago.
>(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property
and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by
posting
,
pursuant to
§
39
-
17
-
1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such
person
'
s
, business
'
s
, or other entity
'
s failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on
the property by posting pursuant to
§
39
-
17
-
1359.
(b
) Immunity under this subsection (a) does 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.
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/SA0692.pdf
>>30468744
There is no right to free speech on my property. There is no right to hold your church services in my lobby, and I can kick reporters out of my store.
Dumbass.
>>30468750
oops the paste got fucked up, but source is at bottom.
>>30468734
No.
YOU made the decision to patronize a store that doesn't allow guns, YOU are responsible for the consequences.
>>30468506
>STOP, IF YOU KILL HIM YOU'LL BE JUST AS BAD AS HIM!
:^)
>>30468780
That store made the decision to disarm its patrons. THE STORE is responsible for the consequences. You didn't make the decision to post a sign out front that disallows you from defending yourself.
Fucking dumbass retard.
>>30468506
it's a zero sum game now, we need to destroy the other side
>>30468250
Letting guns into mental wards is a bad fucking idea.
>>30468768
I'm going to start a High Mass in the lobby of a 5-star hotel and they can't say nothing cuz it's the Constitution!!
Wat? Somebody does something you don't like on your property, you kick them out.
>>30468628
It took me 8 panels to realize that was a man.
Also, people need to stop pretending that any American of European descent actually considers themselves white. We're all unduly proud of whichever squabbling little old world country shat out our forebears. And we will fight you if you badmouth the best homeland ever other than America.
>>30468706
You still have to respect private property. If they put up a no guns sign, you still have to obey it. But now, if they put up a no guns sign and some dipshit kneecaps you while robbing the place the storeowner is also liable for your injury.
It's like if a business wanted you to smear shit on your face when you walked in, and the state decided to make them liable if any customers got pink eye. You still have to rub the shit when you walk in, but if you get sick you have grounds to sue.
>>30468506
That is why you sue them for a large amount but then settle for something low enough to pay for medical, legal, and tidy profit.
It'll be cheaper for the companies to just settle. Appealing it up higher and higher will cost them too much. This is why they have insurance.
If you want to go after "gun free zones" for the sake of public safety you wouldn't do it through litigation after the fact. That's as dumb and liberal as it gets.
You would require the site to have a permit to be a target, which may require guards or whatever else.
No, your rights are not denied or stripped if you choose to give up your gun. No, no one automatically must support you because you do that. Just because an idiot decided not to wear a helmet doesn't mean mommy can sue whoever put down the pavement that caved his skull in.
>>30468605
Note, this law doesn't stop people from putting up those signs. It just states that if you exercise your right to disarm people on your property, you are legally taking up the responsibility for defending them.
>>30470248
Not OP, but I believe that thats a beautiful thing.
>>30468250
But private property rights trump all and if I want to keep guns out of MY store or club I should be allowed.
>>30468250
>Libtards say gun manufacturers should be sued for mass shootings
>Conservashits say store owners should be sued if someone gets shot on their property
>>30468506
How is this a stupid law?
If they're saying I'm not allowed to be responsible for my own safety, guess who gets to protect me?
>>30468250
fuckin' metal
emailing this to Governor Abbott now, the NO OPEN CARRY signs down here in the Republic are starting to irk me with how prevalent they are
Too bad they covered their own asses and are probably going to keep Schools as hero free zones.
>>30468624
Fuck you nigger
t. TNfag
>>30468506
How, specifically, can this not stand up to judicial review? This is almost the same as requiring companies to put up "HOT COFFEE IS HOT DRINK" signs on drink cups.
>>30468768
You can't kick me out of restaurant for being Christian, that is quietly exercising my 1st ammendment right. Concealed carrying is the equivalent of quietly exercising the 2nd ammendment. A church sermon would be equivalent to a shooting range. If the government says you can't deny two fags a cake because it violates their rights you can certainly apply that to carrying a firearm.
>>30475141
no one requires that though. McDonald's did that voluntarily to avoid lawsuits.
And in fairness, that lady literally got third degree burns and needed skin grafts and McDonald's does in fact keep coffee at a temperature (190 °F) which would cause third degree burns in 2 seconds.
They weren't required to put the warning, they haven't been made to stop serving coffee at that temperature (and they continue to do so).
They are trying to curtail liability by providing a warning that their coffee is hot and therefore should be handled with care.
>>30468250
That it, i'm a #TennesseeTorpedo now.
>>30475186
Yes you can. The fags belong to a good tribe and gun owners belong to a bad one. Didn't you get the memo?
>>30475186
>You can't kick me out of restaurant for being Christian
he can because the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals, it applies only to the government. ONLY.
The restaurant is property owned by an individual and they have the right to serve or not serve people as they please. A restaurant owner actually could put up a NO BLACKS sign right now if they wanted to.
They WOULDN'T because they would quickly be out of business because the majority of Americans today would not want to be associated with or give their money to a business that discriminated in that way.
>>30475220
arm the gays to protect them from Phil for when he inevitably goes Omar.
>>30475246
Wow. You were tripping serious drugs in Social Studies, weren't you?
>>30475276
they call the class "U.S. Government", bong. Way to out yourself.
Here's the actual text of what it says you dumb foreign retard.
Note how it says nothing about private citizens making rules about other people's religions.
>>30475307
>they call the class "U.S. Government"
That's heartening.
>foreign
Newfag.
>>30475321
back foul demon, lest I get my crucifix and wooden stakes.
If we locked you in a room in Vegas with Barneyfag and one knife do you think they'd let us gamble on who lived
Idaho also allowed constitutional carry that started on the 1st but nobody seems to have noticed that, I guess.
>>30468605
So...if someone ownes a business, they can post a sign that says "no niggers," yes?
Owning a business doesn't give you the ability to deny someone their constitutional rights, fuckwad
>>30475321
>being asspained that nobody pays attention to trips or anything they say
ive seen you tripping for a long time and i have no idea where youre from.
>>30468506
Lol I didn't know Trudeau browsed /k/
>If you kill your enemies, they win
>>30475802
That's a poor analogy, at best, although I would also argue that the 14th amendment only addresses equal protection under the law; it doesn't explicitly require businesses to service protected classes, which were retroactively recognized through judicial activism.
No, honestly, in the complete, legal interpretation of the 1st, 2nd, and 14th amendments, while the government (at any level) cannot impose these restrictions on individuals, this does not prevent businesses or individuals from doing the same on their own property, as long as they don't receive government funding.
Although the (current) expansion of the 14th amendment has included protected classes under a "shall service" requirement with private businesses, the 1st and 2nd amendments still reserve private discretion. You can just as soon throw someone out of your shop for supporting Obama as you can for him having a concealed weapon, and these privileges are likely to remain.
>>30468605
So if I own a business, you saying I can rape and sexually harass all my employees and the government has no say in it?
>>30468250
Personally I don't think that is a great thing thing, don't get me wrong now, it's a gaze into the right direction but.
The owner of the business should be allowed house rules, but we have the right to defend out selves.
" No open carry allowed." would be a better way to go about this. As it allows citizens to be armed, but makes soccer moms feel better, "outta sight outta mind" you could even make the sign look the same, and non would be the wiser 'cept those who carry.
If you're not concealed carrying , you're not doing it right.
>>30468453
I love this state too. Where are you at? I'm in Gibson co.
>>30476025
>t. stupid faggot
let me break this down for you, you gigantic retard, because I'm sick of 14 year olds like you spouting stupid shit like this every time a thing like this comes up. Hopefully this will educate you and you'll avoid saying retarded diarrhea like this in the future (unless you're already aware and you're just shitposting, in which case please kill yourself with a crossbow)
Your rights end where someone else's nose begins. This is because they have rights too. A property owner can't rape or sexually harass you while you're on their property because you have the right to not be raped codified in our law.
Your Second Amendment rights are not to be infringed by the STATE. Every item on the Bill of Rights applies to a situation where THE STATE is trying to take away your rights. A private individual cannot STOP you from having your second amendment rights. That's not what's going on here. Private individuals are not confiscating your arms.
Private individuals, however, who own land are able to exert a certain amount of power over what happens on that land, including ejecting someone from their property for near on any reason whatsoever.
Have you ever seen a sign that says 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' in a restaurant? That's how that works. Restaurants can refuse to serve you for not being DRESSED right, restaurants can, technically, be members-only. And restaurants can refuse to serve you for being an obnoxious loud fucker even though you have the right to be that from 1A. Businesses can KICK YOU OFF THEIR PROPERTY for being an obnoxious loud fucker. So yes. You cannot be kept from exercising your rights, but in my house I have the right to tell you to fuck off if I don't like it, and you can go carry in the street. Sorry.
Here's a thought: go start the same business specifically catering to pro-gun folks. There's plenty of people who would happily give you their money instead of the antis.
>>30476713
As based as I think the Tennessee law is.
This nigga is right.
>>30476713
okay smartass
IM NOT INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHT TO NOT HAVE A CAKE FOR YOUR WEDDING I JUST REFUSE SERVICE
>get sued and lose your business and life savings
It's not fair that the left can make whatever dumb bullshit they want without consequence. This law serves them their own medicine.
>>30476032
Being against open carry is exactly a step in the wrong direction.
>>30476713
>using the "your right to swing your arm stops at y nose" false equivalency.
I don't think I have an anime face smug enough.
But your point is valid. Property owners do get some control over what happens on their property.
>>30468506
If they're taking away your right to self defense then they're taking the responsibility to defend you and if they fail then you should be able to sue them
>>30468737
I've heard people blaming American gun owners for that shit in Istanbul
>ISIS bombs Turkish airport
>"We should restrict gun ownership in America"
>>30475802
A gun owner in Florida made his FFL a "Muslim-Free Zone" and CAIR got super asshurt and hired a shitty billboard attorney to fight it
His shit still stands because anyone can refuse service to anyone for any reason
He will have to face scrutiny of the liberals
>oh no, the liberals won't shop at my gun store
>>30476732
you do have that right. I don't think it's nice or right to do, but I'm pretty sure if they took it to the Supreme Court the Court would have to rule in favor of the bakery and also find that the state getting involved was violating the bakery owner's rights because that is a fucking scary precedent.
You also have the right to take your business elsewhere. And if there's NO ONE (I find this extremely unlikely) who's willing to decorate you a gay wedding cake, then here's an idea, start a business that IS willing to do that. And don't buy ANYTHING from those fuckers anymore. Because I have a sneaking suspicion you're not the only queers having this problem.
>>30476766
>false equivalency
I'm not sure you know what that phrase means. "Your rights end where my nose begins" is a metaphor. Your rights end where someone else's rights begin, since you're being a pedantic autist.
>>30476800
Maybe you shouldn't hang out with the mentally retarded
>>30476713
Yeah, fuck you.
I was aware of the regressive left, but until just now didn't know about regressive right.
>>30476829
get off my lawn.
>>30476828
>implying I don't shitpost in libtard infested forums for shits and grins
>>30476836
so what you're saying is... you came here from reddit
get out.
>>30476849
I don't "come" from somewhere else
The fourchins are my home
I go elsewhere to get blatant shitposting out of my system, and it isn't reddit or tumblr
>>30476032
But thats the thing. House rules still apply in this situation.
A business does not have to do anything right then. A business owner will have to weigh the pros and cons of allowing carrying on their business grounds.
I can 100% tell you right now that this won't change a damn thing until there is actually a mass shooting in Tennessee, that causes people to be injured, in a business that banned concealed carry. The chances of that actually happening are astronomically low.
Which is good for two reasons:
1-Its gonna require us to have an actual conversation about how often mass shootings happen. The left DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION!!! I don't know if you have heard some of the news places recently but they've been talking about how short of a time period there was between San Bernardino and Orlando. This helps their narrative because it makes it seem like "mass shootings happen erryday protect the chilluns." If we start talking about "well the actual risk of dying in a mass shooting is like .00000000002% chance," normal people are wonder where that "mass-shooting every day" number comes from.
2-This will divide and conquer liberal scum. Its a lose-lose-lose situation for them. Businesses now have to either allow conceal carriers because "mass shootings all the time" or take the chance that one is never gonna happen in their business and they're gonna get sued because they banned CC.
cont
>>30475835
Did he actually fucking say this?
>>30468250
Private property does trump the government laws, so property owners do have the right to say no guns in there property. It's a great idea to hold them liable, like if someone gets hurt on your property you'd get sued, it should be the same. I really hope this takes off
>>30477133
continued
This also isn't likely to affect a lot of stuff. Hippy coffee shops are still gonna ban CC, your local hardware store probably will still let you. Of course if one does happen and places get sued then you might see some change depending on what happens.
But for now this law really doesn't do anything. We'd just have to see how it works out in the future.
>>30468750
Correct me if Im wrong, but isnt this saying that the owners arent liable IF the person breaks the rules by carrying?
>>30477279
Never mind, im stupid. I get it now
>>30475802
I should God damn right be able to hang a sign saying no niggers and beaners on my own personal owned business property.
FUCKING commie
>>30476032
>The owner of the business should be allowed house rules
The right to create the death of anyone who steps in your store during operating hours is not "house rules"
It takes someone with a brain cell short of two to think store owners are entitled to the right to any level of physical damage to visitors.
>>30468250
>“Any permit holder injured as a result of being stripped of their right to self-defense, and their handgun, in a posted gun-free zone can file a lawsuit within two years of the event as long as they meet the following requirements: 1.) were authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident 2.) prohibited from carrying a firearm because of a gun-free sign 3.) the property owner was not required to be posted by state or federal law and posted by choice.”
And this right there is the juridical incentive to end mass shootings.
