HB 1732 Protecting the Exercise of Self-Defense Rights – Rep Saccone 2015-2016

[pyld]

That's nonsense, and you just made it up.

Really? I know that the general reader here on PAFOA is not going to know what "premise liability" nor "duty of care" nor nor "negligent security" nor "foreseeability" are but since law ain't exactly rocket science, I do. I'm going to give your strawman version of my argument the whirl, despite knowing better..

I'm sure you are aware that there are a bunch of states (including our neighbors in Ohio, found in ORC 2923.126 and elsewhere for instance) which specifically and unambiguously state in statute that a gunbusters sign does not and will not, by itself, trigger liability under a general duty of care to invitees or employees. So, I'm curious how that's possible under your novel legal theory of "no Constitutional barrier to making property owners liable in tort for the safety of people who are disarmed at their insistence." I suppose you are technically correct--it's statutory in a bunch of states.

So, let's take our friends in Ohio--you enter a store with a gunbusters sign. You accept the implied contract. You are shot. The statute specifically exempts them from liability as a result of the sign. But yeah, I made it up.

You can sue anyone for anything, including liability under a duty of care. That does not mean you are going to win, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that your alleged tort is going to survive scrutiny based on plain language statute, much less a novel (and likely deficient) Constitutional analysis.

You can have the last word. I knew I was going to be amused if I clicked "display post" and I'm rarely disappointed around these parts....

[pyld]

Could a business owner/representative eject customers based on their choice of clothing? T-shirts? Brand of footwear?

Have you ever seen "no shoes, no shirt, no service?" those not legal?

[sawbog]

As a business owner you can restrict someone from standing there, preaching about whatever. They would be disrupting business.

However, as a business owner, can you restrict one customer from talking to another customer about whatever? I think not.

The lawful firearms carrier is not disrupting business, they're just being a customer.

Could a business owner/representative eject customers based on their choice of clothing? T-shirts? Brand of footwear?

You could argue that the no-gun policy is exactly about disrupting business. Some people just aren't comfortable with it, just like they might not feel comfortable eating next to a shirtless, shoeless customer. Although I would disagree with this, you could also argue that the no-gun policy was put in place specifically to make employees and customers safer. Theoretically, if everyone abided but their policy, no one would ever get shot on their premises. How could I have a case against the owner if the perpetrator violated those safety precautions? Of course I'm playing devil's advocate here, and I don't agree that no-gun policies make us safer, but I'm just saying. IANAL, so maybe I'm all wet.

You can be denied entrance into some establishments if you try to bring in your own food or drink. They have their reasons for doing that and I'm fine with it since it's their prerogative. I'm a big supporter of the 2nd amendment but I view it more as something that prevents the GOVERNMENT from restricting our right to keep and bear arms. I'm also a big supporter of property rights though, so I'm at odds with this proposed legislation. I don't like the fact that Best Buy checks my bag before I leave the store with my purchases, so I don't go there anymore. Are they violating my privacy rights? Probably not, but I don't like the policy. Same with no-gun policies IMHO.

[GunLawyer001]

Really? I know that the general reader here on PAFOA is not going to know what "premise liability" nor "duty of care" nor nor "negligent security" nor "foreseeability" are but since law ain't exactly rocket science, I do. I'm going to give your strawman version of my argument the whirl, despite knowing better..

I'm sure you are aware that there are a bunch of states (including our neighbors in Ohio, found in ORC 2923.126 and elsewhere for instance) which specifically and unambiguously state in statute that a gunbusters sign does not and will not, by itself, trigger liability under a general duty of care to invitees or employees. So, I'm curious how that's possible under your novel legal theory of "no Constitutional barrier to making property owners liable in tort for the safety of people who are disarmed at their insistence." I suppose you are technically correct--it's statutory in a bunch of states.

So, let's take our friends in Ohio--you enter a store with a gunbusters sign. You accept the implied contract. You are shot. The statute specifically exempts them from liability as a result of the sign. But yeah, I made it up.

You can sue anyone for anything, including liability under a duty of care. That does not mean you are going to win, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that your alleged tort is going to survive scrutiny based on plain language statute, much less a novel (and likely deficient) Constitutional analysis.

You can have the last word. I knew I was going to be amused if I clicked "display post" and I'm rarely disappointed around these parts....

There is no Constitutional barrier to Pennsylvania, or the United States government, altering the tort laws to make the property owner/manager liable if he creates a gun-free zone and a disarmed person is injured or killed by a third party. The point being made here by me and others (you need to read for content, instead of just for snark opportunities) is that, in the context of altering PA law to forbid property owners from even creating gun-free zones, an alternative exists that's more pro-freedom, and balances the rights of property owners against the self-defense rights of the general public.

What you missed is that existing laws in other states, the ones that criminalize violation of "no guns" signs, are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion here. It's great that you had a factoid that you thought was relevant to the conversation, but it wasn't.

We would like to change the laws. There are at least 2 ways of doing that. One is to mandate away the gun-free zones. The other is to make the property owners liable for the consequences, and alter the incentives by bringing the insurance companies over to our side.

Try to keep up.

[Carnes]

We would like to change the laws. There are at least 2 ways of doing that. One is to mandate away the gun-free zones. The other is to make the property owners liable for the consequences, and alter the incentives by bringing the insurance companies over to our side.

Right on, GL! You've made very good points throughout this thread.

So, any chance the person that drafted option #1 would trade in and go with option #2? (I'd ask WF, but I think I might have burnt that bridge.)

[GunLawyer001]

Right on, GL! You've made very good points throughout this thread.

So, any chance the person that drafted option #1 would trade in and go with option #2? (I'd ask WF, but I think I might have burnt that bridge.)

I think that both options could work, but Option #1 has the added advantage of rubbing the Social Justice Warrior's faces in the Nanny State regulating private actions in ways that the SJW's dislike, for a change.

[Carnes]

I think that both options could work, but Option #1 has the added advantage of rubbing the Social Justice Warrior's faces in the Nanny State regulating private actions in ways that the SJW's dislike, for a change.

Yeah, given the circumstances, I wouldn't resist option #1, but I couldn't, in good conscience, actively support it. I would actively support option #2 (in partially tainted conscience).

[GunLawyer001]

Yeah, given the circumstances, I wouldn't resist option #1, but I couldn't, in good conscience, actively support it. I would actively support option #2 (in partially tainted conscience).

It was only a year or so ago that I was where you are now, so I can't really disagree with much enthusiasm. But if the SJW's want schmoozers in the Capitol to micro-manage our lives, we owe it to them to show them all of the ramifications of that.

[Bang]

I would like to offer something re the freedom of speech question. Many think that freedom of speech equates to a right to be heard. It does not.

[WhiteFeather]

It was only a year or so ago that I was where you are now, so I can't really disagree with much enthusiasm. But if the SJW's want schmoozers in the Capitol to micro-manage our lives, we owe it to them to show them all of the ramifications of that.

Bingo!

To stop out of control fires, the fire fighter often start backfires, this is how to deal with out of control centralized big government spreading their tentacles over all aspects beyond the constitutional frame work of delegated of powers

The actual text is now available for HB 1732, please take the time to read and understand, IF you support the concept see OP on who to contact.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&bn=1732


As to the discussion of private property often comes up

When you go to government to create a “legal fiction” identity (LLC) to create a Limited Liability Corporation, what they buy and own is corporation property, “controlled” by the corporation and it not owned by an individual. It’s not really “private” property in the true sense, such as your home, as an actual person who owns the private property and an individual(s) carries personally ALL the responsibility.

When you go to the government for added legal protection to limit liability for a created corporation just in case it does harm to individuals, the corporation has to take some responsibly for individual safety that they allow access to property.

IF Corporations Don’t like the government made up rules and regulations those that control it, can dissolve the corporation and always assume the personal responsibility you have as individual over your private property and do what ever they want.



More importantly to the main issues here behind the reason why the need for HB 1732



IF you a crazy mentality disturbed individual, ready to do a murder rampage, do you really care IF the corporation controlled property is a “GUN FREE ZONE”

How is that going to work out? You see it’s a “this facility is a gun free zone” sign and Stop ask one of the many voices in your head what to do now….. guess they will say I can’t shoot this place up now, as I don’t want to violate corporation policy about no firearms on company property. REALLY? how stupid is that


You as an individual have constitutional rights that trump everything else and what our government founders original intent was created to protect.


Now on the otherside of the coin, where does a corporation that have added benefit of government legal limited liability exemption protection, say we don’t care what happens to our employees traveling to or from the corporation property, we don’t care about their personal safety, screw em.

Government has for decades stepped and wrote laws to govern business, this is just another one of those regulations, that actual will provide individuals the option to protect themselves if they choose.


This will also give added benefits to corporations, to limit their legal liability that allowed employees and visitors to keep firearms locked in the parking lot, that puts all the legal responsibilities on the individual that brings a firearm on company property.

The corporation will also get a added legal benefit and extra protection from this change by the shift of responsibly.


As several people already posted, IF corporations don’t allow you to keep your personal property locked in your privately owned vehicle, they can then assume ALL the liability to provide for your personal safety to and from you private home everyday. like that is ever going to happen.