Missouri House Bill 96

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by motorhead0922

Let's look for a moment at the Aurora shooting. If this proposed law had been in effect, the only people who could have sued would have been someone with a CCW who left his or her weapon in the car or at home because of the sign on the front doors.

Where does it say in this Proposed Bill that only Permit Holder would be allowed to sue?

Does this Bill take away a non permit holder's right to seek compensation?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Steve4102

Civil Rights laws protect a class of people with a common physical characteristic from discrimination.

Religion is not a common physical characteristic. I can go from Roman Catholic to Protestant to Jewish to Unitarian to Quaker without losing a pound, or even clipping my toenails.

[motorhead0922]

Where does it say in this Proposed Bill that only Permit Holder would be allowed to sue?

Good point. The way I read it, the bill establishes the right of a CCW holder to sue. That implies that the right does not exist.

[44 AMP]

the bill establishes the right of a CCW holder to sue. That implies that the right does not exist.

You would think so, using standard English, but the law is not standard English. I'm not a lawyer, and if I'm wrong, I hope one of our resident legal eagles will correct me on this, but..

I believe that the phrase "establishing a right" is not about creating a right where none previously existed, but about establishing a legal framework specifying the right and how it is legally treated, that had not been previously specifically recognized.

The Constitution specifically says that it does not list all our rights. Our rights exist, independent of any document, they are "natural rights" or "God given rights".

So, I think establishing a right is simply putting a pre-existing right into the written law.

[steve4102]

Religion is not a common physical characteristic. I can go from Roman Catholic to Protestant to Jewish to Unitarian to Quaker without losing a pound, or even clipping my toenails.

Fine, an exception to my use of the word Physical, but by you changing religions, you are not altering the way you must be treated under the law.

You the person, cannot be discriminated against no matter what your religion happens to be or not be. Unlike a firearm or a skateboard, you cannot leave your religion at home or in your car.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by steve4102

Fine, an exception to my use of the word Physical, but by you changing religions, you are not altering the way you must be treated under the law.

You the person, cannot be discriminated against no matter what your religion happens to be or not be. Unlike a firearm or a skateboard, you cannot leave your religion at home or in your car.

That's the point -- anti-discrimination laws are not based solely or entirely on physical characteristics. They are civil rights laws, and what they protect are any classes of characteristics the people who write the laws choose to include. These days the list seems to include gender, age, color, religion, ethnicity, and a few others I can't think of at the moment. The list evolves -- if it hasn't been added to the list by law, the courts seem to adding sexual orientation (and/or "gender identification") as another criterion for which discrimination is prohibited.

It all comes down to equal protection under the law, and ensuring that people in the enumerated, protected classes are not deprived of their civil rights.

The Bill of Rights is a constitutional enumeration of what were considered to be the most important human (and, therefore, "civil") rights. One of those rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Skipping over the fact that facially any requirement for a government permission slip to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right is of dubious validity, I think it's fair to say that carrying a firearm pursuant to a properly issued government permission slip is a civil right. Yet people who wish to do this are discriminated against because they can be barred from entering (i.e. discriminated against) businesses (defined in the ADA as "places of pubic accommodation) that are NOT allowed to prohibit entry to people based on race, color, creed (religion), gender, etc.

Why is this? Because carry permit holders has not been expressly added to the list of protected classes. We could be, at any time. The proposed bill is just another way of accomplishing the same end.

[steve4102]

...but these signs and restrictions do not ban the Permit Holder, or the Gun Owner, they simply ban the gun. An inanimate object that is not a person and does not have rights.

I have yet to see a sign or anything similar that bans the "person" which is what all civil rights laws protect, the person or persons, not an object you happen to feel the need to carry.

Now if you came across a business that banned you because you have a permit to carry or own firearms, maybe, your logic would have merit, but banning the gun while still allowing you to enter as a person, not so much.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by steve4102

...but these signs and restrictions do not ban the Permit Holder, or the Gun Owner, they simply ban the gun. An inanimate object that is not a person and does not have rights.

That is splitting hairs a bit. A person has rights and some of those rights involve inanimate object(s), like a weapon such as a gun, in the case of the 2nd Amendment to our U.S. Constitution. You can't ban all of the object(s) and/or tool(s) of a right and somehow claim you aren't completely negating that right.

[steve4102]

That is splitting hairs a bit. A person has rights and some of those rights involve inanimate object(s), like a weapon such as a gun, in the case of the 2nd Amendment to our U.S. Constitution. You can't ban all of the object(s) and/or tool(s) of a right and somehow claim you aren't completely negating that right.

The Constitution protects us against infringement from Government and it's agents.

A business is neither Government or an Agent of Government, so the Second does not apply.

[steve4102]

Am I the only one that thinks this proposed Bill is just a tad Hypocritical?

The Government both State and Federal, have created by law Gun Free Zones.

In MO, it is illegal to carry a Firearm,
Police Station
Election day polling place
Prison or jail
Court house
Any meeting of a Government body
Bars
Airports
Schools
Daycare
Riverboat Gambling operations
Amusement park
Sporting events of 5K+
Hospitals
Plus all the prohibited places under Federal law.

Now these same legislators that created these Gun Free Zones are now trying to pass legislation placing the responsibility and safety on the shoulders of a "Business" that chooses to not allow a firearm on their property?

What about the GFZ listed above why would they be exempt rom this new proposed legislation? I f a business is now legally responsible and can be sued, why not the Government and the Legislators themselves that created these Gun Free Zones?

[motorhead0922]

It wasn't the same legislators that wrote and passed the current restrictions you cite, since that list was put into place in 2003 (I believe) and Missouri has had term limits for elected officials of 8 years maximum for quite a while now.

It is not, however, a criminal offense to carry in any of the places mentioned; the person carrying, if discovered, just has to leave the premises.

I agree that it's time to remove most of those listed places. Perhaps the legislature will address that next.

Suing the government for damages for egregious laws that hurt people? Sounds okay to me. Suing individual legislators? Nah.

This brings to mind the Illinois case that led to that state finally allowing CCW. A church secretary in Illinois, with a CCW from another state, was shot and gravely injured due to her not being able to carry at the church. Was the state morally responsible for her injuries? I say partially, yes. Did the state pay anything for her care? I assume not a penny.

[OldMarksman]

In my considered opinion, the bill is ludicrous.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

In my considered opinion, the bill is ludicrous.

Exactly as well as Hypocritical, and if challenged in court, maybe even unconstitutional.

[tyme]

Originally Posted by heyjoe

no gun signs having the force of law as in it being a crime to enter a posted store in some states, is also governmental overreach. While I do not argue that property owners should be able to ban guns from their premise, violation of that wish should be covered by trespass laws. If you are asked to leave when it is discovered you are carrying a firearm and you do not leave then you are charged with trespass. It is goverment over reach for it to be a crime to merely enter the premise. It is also governmental over reach for a person to be required to notify that they are carrying before entering a premise as is the case in a few states. The knife cuts both ways.

I agree, and that's more equitable because for the most part you're only identified as carrying a gun if you're not concealing it. Anybody who wants a gun for self defense, but prefers open carry, is not really inconvenienced by untucking their shirt or throwing on an extra layer.

The problem is that it's not just about property owners having some right to prohibit carry on their own property.

It imposes external costs on armed citizens; they have to leave guns at home or in their car (subject to theft or accidents due to the frequent transfers of the gun to and from the glove compartment).

Concealed carry is unobservable, and laws forbidding unobservable actions or things that aren't inherently dangerous are dumb laws.

Different kinds of private property come with different property rights. The owner of private residential property has near-absolute control over what people can do. You can ban guns, you can make people strip naked to enter, you can even ban Blacks or Asians or Russians or Muslims or Jews or Christians or women.

The owner of a business open to the public is not preemptively vetting anyone. As a result, he or she cannot discriminate based on race, religion, or nationality. Race isn't chosen; religion and nationality are somewhat chosen, or at least changeable. Why not add non-obvious exercise of other constitutional rights to that list?

Not-obvious expression of religion is a "choice" too, not unlike being an armed citizen. Does anyone think for a moment that it would be okay to if a State allowed stores to post signs banning Mormons from wearing their special temple underwear? No, because while of course Mormons can choose not to wear it to a store, or reschedule their shopping at another time when they're wearing something else, that's an unreasonable thing to have to do, regardless of what you think about Mormonism as a religion. "They can go to the store after changing," or "They can go to another store," doesn't fly for hidden religious accoutrements. Why do gun owners insist on that argument for allowing states to allow stores to ban concealed carry?

Look at how other cases are handled. Do you want in your store someone who has a swastika tattoo? Probably not. Do you petition your state for a law allowing you to post a sign banning swastika-adorned individuals from entering? No. Or what about gang tattoos and gang members? There's a clear and obvious benefit to keeping such people out, but where are the state laws allowing businesses to preemptively ban such people? "Anyone belonging to a gang, whether tattoos are visible or not, may not enter these premises." That seems like it would make a lot more sense and have a lot greater impact—if it could be enforced, which like concealed carry it couldn't be—by reducing potential problems in a store. Both can be enforced when it's obvious—forehead gang tattoos, open carry—but not when tattoos or guns are hidden. Why do so many gun owners want concealed carry of arms handled differently from everything else? Why do so many gun owners who favor minimal government want an unnecessary law that allows public businesses to preemptively ban concealed carry of arms, despite knowing that such laws are not very effective?

Let me see if I can summarize these:

1. Unenforceable generally, and selective enforcement of laws is bad.
2. Property rights—who can be on your property and when you can get them to leave—is different for businesses open to the public, for business not open to the public, and for residential property. Also think zoning.
3. Forcing people to disarm, since going armed a "choice", has external consequences beyond whether that person will be carrying a firearm in your store
4. Nobody would think about applying the same rationale in other cases. Should business owners be able to preemptively ban anyone with hidden religious or political articles, even tattoos, just because some people don't like them? Should there be a separate crime other than trespass law to handle those cases?


Isn't this law simply an attempt to re-balance the biased legal environment and calculation that causes business to post no-guns signs in the first place?

[2ndsojourn]

"Isn't this law simply an attempt to re-balance the biased legal environment and calculation that causes business to post no-guns signs in the first place?"

Agreed. It's an over-reaction to an over-reaching anti gun environment.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by tyme

It imposes external costs on armed citizens; they have to leave guns at home or in their car (subject to theft or accidents due to the frequent transfers of the gun to and from the glove compartment).

They do not "have" to do any such thing.

They can simply not enter the posted property.

That way they can keep their firearm on their person and not violate the law and or the wishes and "Rights" of a fellow American.

[44 AMP]

I get it, we think carry is a good idea. It's our right. But if you recognize something as a right, you have to also recognize other things as a right, as well, even when they are distastefull to you, personally.

And, you have to recognize that ALL our rights are in one place vs. the government, and a different place vs. private citizens.

The law being what it currently is, there is some overlap when you are talking about a business open to the public.

No one seems to get bent out of shape at a store that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service". But it is the same fundamental right being affected, your freedom of choice.

And we must respect that, because the property owner ALSO has freedom of choice, and if we demand the authority to violate theirs, FOR OUR CONVENIENCE, then they get the authority to violate OURS for THEIR convenience.

Simply put, we don't have a right to access their property in a manner that does not meet with their approval. Even businesses "open to the public". We don't have a right to go there, we are allowed to go there, in a manner consistent with law, AND the property owner's approval.

How much of an expense and inconvenience we suffer in order to go there is not a matter of concern to the law.

It imposes external costs on armed citizens;

Ok, so? It's a choice made by armed citizens that they can accept or decline. The fact that accepting it means some expense (money or time, or just the hassle of complying) is a willful choice. NO LAW requires you to go to that private business to shop, or watch a sports team, or listen to a particular band, etc. (now, there is the argument about government places where you ARE required by law to go, and not being allowed our constitutional right to arms THERE, which is, I think, A very valid argument, and an actual infringement of our rights, but that is a discussion for a different thread)

The basic principles are simple and clear, but it gets complex and muddy when you to specific of individual cases and various laws covering "protected classes" of people.

There are "test cases" some currently ongoing, I'm sure, about whether or not a business "open to the public" has to violate their own rights (such as a religious belief) in order to accommodate the rights of SOME members of the public. Unfortunately for us, being an armed citizen is not one of the listed protected groups. So, any legal precedent set by these cases does NOT apply (directly at any rate) to firearms and carry rights.

I can easily see where the proposed law is a huge overreach in some people's opinions. It seems to me to be an ethically fair concept, but not a legally workable one in today's society.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by steve4102

They do not "have" to do any such thing.

They can simply not enter the posted property.

That way they can keep their firearm on their person and not violate the law and or the wishes and "Rights" of a fellow American.

I think there is a different set of circumstances between a situation involving an individual property owner and that of a business open to the public. Even if you think there is no important enough reason for the general public to ever carry a gun at a business that is no-gun, what about the employees? A choice to work or not? They might be able to work somewhere else if there are jobs somewhere else and that place isn't no-gun

[steve4102]

"Open to the Public" means what exactly?

A business invites you in to partake in what they have to offer, be it food, merchandise, services or whatever, but it is not "open" for you to enter whenever you wish, to leave whenever you wish, to carry whatever you wish, to say whatever you wish and to do whatever you wish.

You are invited in as long as you abide by Their rules, if you do not abide by their rules, then you are no longer invited in.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by steve4102

"Open to the Public" means what exactly?

A business invites you in to partake in what they have to offer, be it food, merchandise, services or whatever, but it is not "open" for you to enter whenever you wish, to leave whenever you wish, to carry whatever you wish, to say whatever you wish and to do whatever you wish.

You are invited in as long as you abide by Their rules, if you do not abide by their rules, then you are no longer invited in.

The courts, both federal and state, have long upheld the concept that businesses that are open to the public ("places of public accommodation," as they are generally referred to in the laws) are subject to limitations under law as to whom they may or may not discriminate against in denying entry when they are open for business. I don't see how this departs from that concept. You argue that the customer has a choice: disarm to enter, or choose to stay out. This law says the property owner has a choice: allow armed customers to enter, or accept responsibility for their safety in exchange for exercising your right to require them to disarm.

"But that adds to their cost of doing business," you might say. Being required to install toilet rooms, emergency lights, exit signs, and maybe fire sprinklers also add to the cost of doing business, but all these things are required by building codes (which are "laws"), and nobody complains that the business owner's right to conduct business as he wishes is being violated when the building inspector requires all these features in a business before it's allowed to open.

Choice <==> choice. I don't understand your objections.

[steve4102]

The courts have also ruled that a Business cannot be held responsible for the Illegal acts of a third party.

This bill would remove that and IMO could not stand up to legal challenge.

[44 AMP]

The courts have also ruled that a Business cannot be held responsible for the Illegal acts of a third party.

And the courts have also ruled that the police have no legal responsibility to protect us. (note the key word here is legal)

This is where it turns from a clear cut principle into a can of worms, nest of snakes, and slippery slope.

Because, in the real world, the business IS responsible, and the legal system is used to determine to what degree they are responsible. And remember that there is a distinction made between "responsible" and "liable for damages".

There are many situations where these two are entirely congruent, and some where they are clearly separated. And some situations where they should be separate, but are not, all mixed together under our current legal system.

Here's another way to look at the proposed law, it's a WARNING.
The trouble is, it's probably too subtle to be recognized by the people it's aimed at.

The gun banners want to sue gun makers for "cost to society from gun violence". Isn't this proposed law simply using that same base principle (that someone else is responsible for the acts of a 3rd party) just pointed in the opposite direction?

Could it be that the bill was introduced, believing that it wouldn't pass (and shouldn't pass) but to get people talking, arguing, and examining basic legal and moral principles, in order to remind us all that there are things that should not be made law??

[Aguila Blanca]

In discussing this proposed law, opponents make much of the rights of property owners to control who does what on their property. IMHO (and, I believe, under law) there are differences in how businesses open to the public are treated with regard to this and how private homeowners are treated. There are a few states that have laws requiring specific consent of the property owner to enter their house armed.

Pennsylvania is not one of those states but, several years ago, after reading a discussion on this and seeing a vocal minority of people getting on board and saying "Hell, yeah, nobody better come into MY house with a gun unless I know it and I've given permission," I started worrying about potentially offending one of my Jeeping buddies. He's also a shooter and a reloader, so we have a lot in common, and never run out of things to talk about. But I was worried, so I called him up.

"Hey, ___, I've been reading an article about states that require the owner's specific permission to enter his house with a gun. Just so we're good, do you have any problem with me being armed when I come to visit you?"

"Heck, no. If you're not carrying, then I have to look out for you as well as myself. Lock and load!"

So here's just a guy. Out of the blue, he came up with the concept of the property owner having a responsibility to protect his guests. Why should it be different, with less responsibility, in the case of a for-profit business? If a patron is injured on/in their premises due to a wide variety of other causes ... they're responsible. Why should they be allowed to duck out of responsibility for personal protection, when the patron is perfectly willing to assume that responsibility but the business won't let him/her do so?

[Metal god]

I keep writing out long examples of the business having the right to refuse services but before I'm done I debunk them . I'm getting frustrated with the debate in my own head . I can see both sides having the right . There in lies the debate I guess .

Why not have a law that says something like a business can refuse services to people carrying a firearm . . Therefore you can go in and shop if cancelled but if noticed the business can ask you to leave . Therefore our right to self defense in not infringed and there right as a "private" business is not infringed . win win

They can refuse to serve if you don't have your shirt or shoes on . Why can't they refuse to serve for some other thing you are or are not wearing ?

Can you say we reserve the right to refuse service to all that are "NOT" carrying a firearm ?

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Can you say we reserve the right to refuse service to all that are "NOT" carrying a firearm ?

That would be hilarious The media would be on the collective verge of a mental breakdown...