For John Harris to review

[benburke]

John, please tell me what you think of this:

Dear restaurant owner / manager:
I have observed your sign and I will obey the law, Tennessee code § 39-17-1359, and not carry my legally permitted gun into your establishment. Please sign below indicating you will be totally responsible for my safety. You, and other responsible individuals, including all owners, shareholders, and employees, will pay me, or my family, for any damages, including any injury or loss of life which may occur while I dine at your restaurant. Your refusal to sign this document will not release you from legal liability to protect me and my family from any criminal activity which may occur on your property.

Signed: ___________________________________________ Date: ____________________________

[RobertNashville]

I know you didn't ask me or anyone else to comment but if I might be allowed to say so, it seems to me you are trying to make your point the hard way and, in fact, in a way that will not accomplish what I think you want to accomplish.

For one, while I'm no attorney, I believe that your threatened attempt to hold a business owner responsible for the act of another (i.e. a robber comes into a restaurant while you and your family are eating there and one of your family members is shot during the robbery) simply will not fly. A business has no particular duty to protect you from a criminal act and, short of provable negligence, I believe any attempt to hold them responsible would be disappointing. Also, businesses have rights and one of them, per the legislature, is to chose to allow or ban firearms on their property.

Moving on...as long as your give these businesses your custom they already have what they want...your money (and your letter seems to imply that you are going to eat there but want them responsible for your safety). on the other hand, if you don't eat there but they don't know why you aren't eating there you may hurt their business but you won't get them to change their policy (which is what I assume you would like to see).

My suggestions is that if you track down the legal owners of the business (corporation, private individual(s), etc.) and write a letter (a REAL letter, not an email) to each one of then explaining that you will not be eating in their establishment(s) and why. Then...don't eat there.

I believe that that one absolutely best way to get a business to change the way they are doing something is to let them know your opinion and then talk with your dollars (by not giving them any). At the same time, make sure you DO frequent businesses that are doing things the right way.

[benburke]

Robert, your response makes better sense than my half-brain idea. Your points are clear and I agree with them all. Thanks for setting me straight.

[ProguninTN]

I respectfully disagree with Robert. In some instances, businesses can be held liable for persons harmed on their property. See McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. This case can be found on this site as well as in John's book. Of course, I concede that McClung may not apply in all instances.

[johnharris]

[RobertNashville]

[C. Richard Archie]

If a Business that is open to the public, decided to avail itself of the opportunity to deny valid 2nd Amendment and Article 1 Section 26 Rights to it's patrons, they should be responsible for supplying adequate security in lieu of allowing for the individual opportunity to provide for that via the Constitutions.

Time and again, it has been decided by the courts that there is no Federal, State or Municipal responsibility for providing security for the individual Citizen. Should an incident resulting in injury via a criminal act occurred on the premises of an establishment that chooses to deny the ability to exercise the Constitutionally mandated Rights to protection not to just keep, but bear arms, I feel they should be liable for the resultant damages incurred.

Last year in TN, the Appellate Court sent back to the lower venue, a case where an individual was kidnapped in the parking lot of the Old Hickory Mall in Jackson. The plaintiff's case was the Mall was responsible for security, the Mall argued that it had no duty, the Appellate court did not issue a summary judgment in favor of the Mall, but required the lower court to treat with the case. It disappeared, I am sure it was settled so as to not set a precedent, but the die is cast none the less.

IANAL, but, I read the English language, and the Declaration of Rights, Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution tells me “That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.” The Legislature has decided that HCP holders are not a threat to cause crime, and in so doing have agreed that the HCP holders are responsible for their own defense. That decision is per the Constitution, therefore legal. Should the Property owner decide to nullify that Constitutional Right, they should be responsible to replace the security denied by their decision.

[RobertNashville]

[C. Richard Archie]

[RobertNashville]

Respectfully,

“Rights” are not “constitutionally mandated” by anyone or anything. If something is truly a “right” then at best, it can only be recognized by an instrument drawn up on piece of paper/parchment. In fact, true “rights” supersede the existence of such instruments as “constitutions”.

I also submit and stand by my assertion that that no right can truly be a right if, to enjoy it, the rights of others must be trampled on - attempting to force a business owner to allow weapons in their property when they don’t want them by, for example, claiming that the business owner has an automatic obligation to provide more security for patrons is not an exercise in freedom or liberty; quite the opposite in my opinion.

No one has a “right” to eat in a restaurant…I have no more right to demand or try to force a restaurant owner to allow me to carry my firearm into their restaurant than I do to demand that a Japanese restaurant serve me a cheeseburger – if I want a cheeseburger I need to go to a restaurant that serves them or make my own at home…if I want to carry my firearm into a restaurant, I need to go to a restaurant that allows that.

No restaurateur is denying you the right to self defense; they are simply exercising their personal property rights and, effectively stating that if you want to eat in “my” restaurant, you need to leave you weapon in your vehicle or go somewhere else…that IS the free market system at work…those are the “rules of the game” and I see no problem with them.

P.S.
One more thought does occur.

Let’s assume for the moment that our legislature preserved the right of a business (restaurant, bar, whatever) to chose whether to ban or not ban weapons from their establishments but concurrently required that any entity that does ban them would assume full responsibility for the safety of patrons and any entity that did not ban firearms would be absolved from such liability.

Would you really feel “safe” in that business establishment that banned weapons simply because they had a legislative mandate to be responsible for your safety?

Perhaps the better question is, why would any advocate of our right to self-defense (and to bear arms to provide for our self defense) want to patronize any business that didn’t want us to carry while in/on their property regardless of how “responsible for our safety” they might be? In other words, does being “legally responsible” for our safety really make a difference?

I would think the answer would be “NO” and if it is no; where does that leave us?

I think it leaves us right back where we started - with working to encourage establishments, based on how we spend our money, to not post against law abiding citizens from carrying.

[C. Richard Archie]

I concur, we need to work towards encouraging establishment to allow HCP holders to carry in their establishments.

And I agree, if the individual Owners do not allow me to do so, whether they honor any obligation to provide for security or not, I will not spend my money in their establishments.

[fl0at]

I blame Wyatt Earp for this whole mess. I know most of us don't watch Tombstone and root for the Cowboys, especially during the scene of the "O.K. Corral" shootout, but he infringed on their Constitutional rights when he enforced the law forbidding the carrying of weapons in town.

Be honest... how many people defend the Cowboys in that situation?

[David Lewis]

[fl0at]

[TacticaLogic]

[RobertNashville]

[David Lewis]

In England, or as Andy Griffith says, "back in the old country", there was a very old prohibition against carrying weapons in church, which included into the churchyard outside the church itself. This may have stemmed from common-law, or possibly from canon law. I've even heard this argument used currently to say that you can't carry a gun in a church, even with a permit, which is not true. It is true if the church posts, however. One could only carry on those premises if the weapon was sealed by a priest into the scabbard (usually edged weapons). Violating this was literally a 'breach of the peace."

My reading & limited research indicates that guns were generally carried by most of the male populace old enough to do so, and that they were responsible in carrying them. This included carrying into saloons, and even while drinking. One deterrent to stupid shenanigans was that everyone else was armed. Remember Heinlein's dictum: "An armed society is a polite society."

Elmer Keith (1899-1984) grew up in the last vestiges of what we generally consider the old west, was taught to ride & shoot by Union & Confederate veterans, and knew many of the men who "tamed the west", the famous, infamous, and unknown. In his book Sixguns and his autobiography, "Hell, I Was There", he relates many stories, some first-hand, some second-hand, of violence on the frontier. One story was of an easterner who thought the town would be easy pickings, & robbed the bank. The bank teller called the railroad depot, & the station agent came out & gave the robber both barrels from his shotgun. The robber holed up in his hotel, in a corner room on the second story. The townsfolk simply retrieved their guns and shot up the room from 2 sides, ending the threat...and the life of the robber.

Teddy Roosevelt, in Ranch Life and the Hunting Trail, also wrote of the daily fact of life that everyone carried guns. He also wrote of the attitude of individual responsibility that was prevalent in that society, as well.

Neither of these sources alluded to the celluloid practice of "leave your guns with the sheriff, & pick them up on the way out of town." They, & their contemporaries, would have laughed at such a suggestion.

David

[SomeGuy]

[tnxdshooter]