HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
- WY_Not
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
- Location: Miami County, OH
- Contact:
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
First part is good.
Making a business owner liable for the CHOICE of the carrier and the ACTIONS of the criminal is BS. Here's hoping that part gets chopped.
Making a business owner liable for the CHOICE of the carrier and the ACTIONS of the criminal is BS. Here's hoping that part gets chopped.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2680
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
- Location: Wood county
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
Somebody please school me. Why is it necessary for ORC to address the issue of liability re. prohibiting or permitting firearms in the first place. Does anybody really think such a law is going to be the last word in a civil suit for damages.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
-
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
- Location: Western Ohio
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
WestonDon wrote:Somebody please school me. Why is it necessary for ORC to address the issue of liability re. prohibiting or permitting firearms in the first place. Does anybody really think such a law is going to be the last word in a civil suit for damages.
Licensed CCW has been the law in Ohio for quite some time now. Has anyone successfully been able to file a suit against a business r/t concealed carry, whether allowing or denying? I'm not aware of any, but then all I have access to is google, not lexxus or other databases.
- JediSkipdogg
- Posts: 10257
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
- Location: Batavia
- Contact:
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
In Ohio probably not. Other states may vary. The biggest one right now is Aurora Colorado. Cinemark won in that case after an increasing nearly $700,000 legal fees. The judge ordered the plaintiffs to pay the theater back, but so far Cinemark has not sought collection although the families said they would appeal. Would immunity have lessened that at all? Probably not since it's not an absolute type immunity. At least in Ohio there are still reasons that a business must abide by to be granted the immunity and that is something a long court case would create.M-Quigley wrote:WestonDon wrote:Somebody please school me. Why is it necessary for ORC to address the issue of liability re. prohibiting or permitting firearms in the first place. Does anybody really think such a law is going to be the last word in a civil suit for damages.
Licensed CCW has been the law in Ohio for quite some time now. Has anyone successfully been able to file a suit against a business r/t concealed carry, whether allowing or denying? I'm not aware of any, but then all I have access to is google, not lexxus or other databases.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers
Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
-
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
- Location: Western Ohio
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
Although the Cinemark case is similar, if I remember correctly, the issue wasn't CCW but whether Cinemark should've reasonably known there could've been a problem during that movie and should've hired security. It was alleged that other theaters had taken measures, although I don't know if those theaters took measures just for that movie, or in general.JediSkipdogg wrote:In Ohio probably not. Other states may vary. The biggest one right now is Aurora Colorado. Cinemark won in that case after an increasing nearly $700,000 legal fees. The judge ordered the plaintiffs to pay the theater back, but so far Cinemark has not sought collection although the families said they would appeal. Would immunity have lessened that at all? Probably not since it's not an absolute type immunity. At least in Ohio there are still reasons that a business must abide by to be granted the immunity and that is something a long court case would create.M-Quigley wrote:WestonDon wrote:Somebody please school me. Why is it necessary for ORC to address the issue of liability re. prohibiting or permitting firearms in the first place. Does anybody really think such a law is going to be the last word in a civil suit for damages.
Licensed CCW has been the law in Ohio for quite some time now. Has anyone successfully been able to file a suit against a business r/t concealed carry, whether allowing or denying? I'm not aware of any, but then all I have access to is google, not lexxus or other databases.
I suppose a case could be made if the movie poked fun at the prophet Mohammad. It didn't take a psychic to know something was likely to happen at the cartoon convention in Texas, for example. Except for that though, if someone tries to say a theater should've known something would happen in general might be a harder lift than merely saying a theater is denying patrons the ability to defend themselves.
I suppose if a lawyer had proof that the location of the attack was directly related to the place being a CPZ, then maybe, but that has only happened once that I'm aware of. (in that particular case the defendant was arrested before a mass murder happened anyway so no harm was done)
-
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:04 pm
- Location: Williams County, Ohio
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
Nothing wrong with that.djthomas wrote:It doesn't need to. It says that a licensee who carries in violation of "this section" is not guilty of illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor establishment and is only subject to removal, blah blah blah. "This section" refers to 2923.121 as a whole. The only way for a licensee to carry in violation of section 2923.121 is to be drinking.DontTreadOnMe wrote:It does not state it applies to a person who actually consumes alcohol.
This is a step in the right direction.
-
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:04 pm
- Location: Williams County, Ohio
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
There will never be a "last word". Not ever. Please do not look for one.WestonDon wrote:Somebody please school me. Why is it necessary for ORC to address the issue of liability re. prohibiting or permitting firearms in the first place. Does anybody really think such a law is going to be the last word in a civil suit for damages.
-
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:59 am
- Location: Morrow County
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
Addressing the issue if liability is needed because at this time business owners are explicitly excluded from taking responsibility for their actions when it comes to banning CCW. We don't need a big, new bill to fix this, just a revision striking that warning to the original law. That way no one is saying you can't make a decision regarding your own property, just that you have to accept responsibility for that decision.Kenosis wrote:There will never be a "last word". Not ever. Please do not look for one.WestonDon wrote:Somebody please school me. Why is it necessary for ORC to address the issue of liability re. prohibiting or permitting firearms in the first place. Does anybody really think such a law is going to be the last word in a civil suit for damages.
- WY_Not
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
- Location: Miami County, OH
- Contact:
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
And that liability and responsibility for that decision should rest with the CHL holder that CHOOSES to disarm and enter said business. Heaven forbid THEY should accept responsibility for THEIR decision.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
- JustJack
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
- Location: Findlay
- Contact:
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
While that is a valid point WY_Not, what does one do when you HAVE to go into said business? Here in Findlay I can choose between two Walmart's, 2 Great Scot's, 2 Kroger's, and a Meijer, plus Aldis's and a few mom & pops to go grocery shopping, but not everybody has that choice. I used to live in a town that had 1 grocery store, what if they posted? I have to choose between eating and being able to defend myself if necessary. I used to have to go to Kroger to pay my gas bill because Colombia Gas closed their office and it was before online payments. What if Kroger had posted? I can't defend myself because I have to pay my gas bill?WY_Not wrote:And that liability and responsibility for that decision should rest with the CHL holder that CHOOSES to disarm and enter said business. Heaven forbid THEY should accept responsibility for THEIR decision.
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:53 pm
- Location: Norwalk
- Contact:
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
If you agree to disarm in order to do business with non government thats your deal. If government disarms you in order to do business with them then there is a problem.JustJack wrote:While that is a valid point WY_Not, what does one do when you HAVE to go into said business? Here in Findlay I can choose between two Walmart's, 2 Great Scot's, 2 Kroger's, and a Meijer, plus Aldis's and a few mom & pops to go grocery shopping, but not everybody has that choice. I used to live in a town that had 1 grocery store, what if they posted? I have to choose between eating and being able to defend myself if necessary. I used to have to go to Kroger to pay my gas bill because Colombia Gas closed their office and it was before online payments. What if Kroger had posted? I can't defend myself because I have to pay my gas bill?WY_Not wrote:And that liability and responsibility for that decision should rest with the CHL holder that CHOOSES to disarm and enter said business. Heaven forbid THEY should accept responsibility for THEIR decision.
I have struggled with dyslexia my entire life. I know it's spelled wrong but thanks for pointing it out.
- JediSkipdogg
- Posts: 10257
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
- Location: Batavia
- Contact:
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
Well said and I agree. Nobody forces one to live where they live. It's a CHOICE and with that CHOICE you CHOOSE what is around you as well. There's reason none of us on here live in California or plan on it. I turned down a hefty paying job because it was in California. It was a choice I made between keeping my rights or getting paid well.troy bilt wrote:If you agree to disarm in order to do business with non government thats your deal. If government disarms you in order to do business with them then there is a problem.JustJack wrote:While that is a valid point WY_Not, what does one do when you HAVE to go into said business? Here in Findlay I can choose between two Walmart's, 2 Great Scot's, 2 Kroger's, and a Meijer, plus Aldis's and a few mom & pops to go grocery shopping, but not everybody has that choice. I used to live in a town that had 1 grocery store, what if they posted? I have to choose between eating and being able to defend myself if necessary. I used to have to go to Kroger to pay my gas bill because Colombia Gas closed their office and it was before online payments. What if Kroger had posted? I can't defend myself because I have to pay my gas bill?WY_Not wrote:And that liability and responsibility for that decision should rest with the CHL holder that CHOOSES to disarm and enter said business. Heaven forbid THEY should accept responsibility for THEIR decision.
I understand moving is not cheap (I'm in the process of doing it myself right now) but if one lives in an area where there is one grocery store and they post, that is a choice they have made. They can choose to drive further or choose to disarm. NOTHING or NOBODY is forcing them to go inside that grocery store.
Now, as troy said, government buildings, that's a different story and one I will say should not be posted. However, if we start tearing down private business rights more than we already do, then we just keep destroying America and saying it's alright for the government to control our lives.
If a business wants to build without wheelchair access, let them. If they don't want to make a cake for someone, let them refuse. If they don't want to accept certain people in their business, let them. Then let the people protest and dictate if that business will fail or not.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers
Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
- WY_Not
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
- Location: Miami County, OH
- Contact:
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
Put it in an envelope with a check, and mail it.
JustJack wrote:While that is a valid point WY_Not, what does one do when you HAVE to go into said business? Here in Findlay I can choose between two Walmart's, 2 Great Scot's, 2 Kroger's, and a Meijer, plus Aldis's and a few mom & pops to go grocery shopping, but not everybody has that choice. I used to live in a town that had 1 grocery store, what if they posted? I have to choose between eating and being able to defend myself if necessary. I used to have to go to Kroger to pay my gas bill because Colombia Gas closed their office and it was before online payments. What if Kroger had posted? I can't defend myself because I have to pay my gas bill?WY_Not wrote:And that liability and responsibility for that decision should rest with the CHL holder that CHOOSES to disarm and enter said business. Heaven forbid THEY should accept responsibility for THEIR decision.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
-
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:59 am
- Location: Morrow County
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
No one is saying property owners cannot post if they want. I'm just saying that the artificial liability protection that is in the current law needs removed.
- WY_Not
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
- Location: Miami County, OH
- Contact:
Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses
And why should they be liable either way? They have no responsibility to keep you safe from other individuals. Their responsibility is to ensure that their property does not harm you. It is the responsibility of all individuals to not harm others. It is the responsibility of all individual to protect themselves.
It is the criminal that chose to break the law. It is the criminal that is harming someone. Let the criminal be held liable for their actions.
It is the CHL holder that chose to enter a store knowing that his safety might be at risk. Let the CHL holder take responsibility for their own choices/actions.
It is all a matter of choices. This part of the bill is nothing more than one group using the force of government to infringe upon another group. You are right, you have a right to carry and defend yourself and others. The property owner has the right to control and use his property as he sees fit. Your right does not trump his. To demand that one person give up their rights to accommodate you is no different than the children who did not get their way this election cycle so they are going to shout, stomp, and break things/people till they get their way.
As for government buildings? Agreed. Except for a few rare occasions, they should not be CPZs. If they are so afraid of the law abiding citizens who might be armed then perhaps they should change the way in which they govern.
It is the criminal that chose to break the law. It is the criminal that is harming someone. Let the criminal be held liable for their actions.
It is the CHL holder that chose to enter a store knowing that his safety might be at risk. Let the CHL holder take responsibility for their own choices/actions.
It is all a matter of choices. This part of the bill is nothing more than one group using the force of government to infringe upon another group. You are right, you have a right to carry and defend yourself and others. The property owner has the right to control and use his property as he sees fit. Your right does not trump his. To demand that one person give up their rights to accommodate you is no different than the children who did not get their way this election cycle so they are going to shout, stomp, and break things/people till they get their way.
As for government buildings? Agreed. Except for a few rare occasions, they should not be CPZs. If they are so afraid of the law abiding citizens who might be armed then perhaps they should change the way in which they govern.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.