HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by JediSkipdogg »

walnut red wrote: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.
Should we remove the liability that firearm manufacturers are given? So anytime a Glock is used in a shooting we'll just let the lengthy court process determine if they were at fault or not. There's really no difference between that and a private business posting.
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.
walnut red
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:59 am
Location: Morrow County

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by walnut red »

Again, not saying the property owner should be liable for a criminals actions. Just saying the property owner should not be specifically protected from their OWN actions. The real issue here as I see it is with employers. Sure, the employer should be able to post their property banning the 2nd amendment, just like they can post against the 1st amendment. But that banning the 2nd amendment on their property also bans the 2nd amendment for the individual to and from work.
User avatar
Dewman
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:14 pm
Location: Hamilton,Ohio

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by Dewman »

walnut red wrote:Again, not saying the property owner should be liable for a criminals actions. Just saying the property owner should not be specifically protected from their OWN actions. The real issue here as I see it is with employers. Sure, the employer should be able to post their property banning the 2nd amendment, just like they can post against the 1st amendment. But that banning the 2nd amendment on their property also bans the 2nd amendment for the individual to and from work.
And that is my problem with it.
Allways remember when in combat your weapon was made by the lowest bidder
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
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

Post by WY_Not »

Still a matter of choice. No one is forced to work in a particular place or park in a particular place. It is a choice and a convenience. Banning 2nd A on property does not ban 2nd A on way to and from work. Nothing stopping one from parking on the street.

In the end, just keep the government out of it. Too many stupid and intrusive laws as it is. Why create more? Why be so eager to infringe the rights of others

Keep it in your vehicle and keep your mouth shut. Want to search my vehicle? Fine, go get a warrant and a LEO. In the meantime, I'm going home.
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.
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by qmti »

I agree that the rights of the property owner should not be infringed. But the OSU terrorist attack should be a wake-up call for those business/institutions that do post no guns. How many more victims would there have been if the officer was not on site? How many more would have been slashed (or shot if a gun was used) if the responding officers where three, four, or more minutes away instead of one minute. If the officer was not on site but a ccw holder was there he could have reacted quickly to diminish the threat (hopefully). The officer is a hero for his quick action. The ccw holder for example would probably be criticized by Every Town for stopping the threat. I don't patronize any business that posts. That's my right.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
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

Post by WY_Not »

Then let the argument be won in the marketplace of ideas rather than under threat of violence. Because when all the fluff is removed that is what it is. One group of people "legislating" to send the government to do violence upon another group in order to get their way. Government should be limited to and used to protect one's rights not to impose one's will on others.
qmti wrote:I agree that the rights of the property owner should not be infringed. But the OSU terrorist attack should be a wake-up call for those business/institutions that do post no guns. How many more victims would there have been if the officer was not on site? How many more would have been slashed (or shot if a gun was used) if the responding officers where three, four, or more minutes away instead of one minute. If the officer was not on site but a ccw holder was there he could have reacted quickly to diminish the threat (hopefully). The officer is a hero for his quick action. The ccw holder for example would probably be criticized by Every Town for stopping the threat. I don't patronize any business that posts. That's my right.
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.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by M-Quigley »

WY_Not wrote:Then let the argument be won in the marketplace of ideas rather than under threat of violence. Because when all the fluff is removed that is what it is. One group of people "legislating" to send the government to do violence upon another group in order to get their way. Government should be limited to and used to protect one's rights not to impose one's will on others.
qmti wrote:I agree that the rights of the property owner should not be infringed. But the OSU terrorist attack should be a wake-up call for those business/institutions that do post no guns. How many more victims would there have been if the officer was not on site? How many more would have been slashed (or shot if a gun was used) if the responding officers where three, four, or more minutes away instead of one minute. If the officer was not on site but a ccw holder was there he could have reacted quickly to diminish the threat (hopefully). The officer is a hero for his quick action. The ccw holder for example would probably be criticized by Every Town for stopping the threat. I don't patronize any business that posts. That's my right.
You are equating businesses not having a special protection against even the mere filing of a civil suit with violence? Or are you referring to something else?
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
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

Post by WY_Not »

I am equating the use of government by one group against another with violence because that is what it is. Because you can't get your way on this matter and business won't give up their rights and allow you to infringe on them you want to resort to baseless civil suits to force them to give in. And if they still don't cave, then government will use violence in your name to make them comply. I simply don't see how they are responsible for the acts and decisions of everyone else. It is the criminal who chooses to break the law and harm others. It is the individual who chooses to give up their 2A rights in exchange for convenience when they are free to go elsewhere. Slavery was ended a long time ago. No one is forced to work at a particular place or for a particular company; they CHOOSE to do so. They weigh the options and make a choice.

If a business chooses to stand up for THEIR rights, you would use the government (violence) on them to force them to comply. If you don't like their decision then you are free to go elsewhere. When you propose to use government to get your way then yes you are resorting to violence.
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.
mreising
Posts: 6274
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:07 pm
Location: Warren County

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by mreising »

It is a real stretch to hold a business responsible for the actions of another. I would rather see the signs be made to not have the force of law and that you would only be in jeopardy if you were asked to leave and refused. That is what some states have.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny

Mark
NRA Training Counselor-Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Reloading, Personal Protection in the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home, Home Firearms Safety, Chief RSO. NRA Endowment Life member.
3FULLMAGS+1
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: S.W. corner of stark. co.

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by 3FULLMAGS+1 »

mreising wrote:It is a real stretch to hold a business responsible for the actions of another. I would rather see the signs be made to not have the force of law and that you would only be in jeopardy if you were asked to leave and refused. That is what some states have.
This is where I stand on the issue also.

The Force of law needs to go, and if it does, it doesn't, through fear of a lawsuit, force a bus. owner to do something they don't want to do, (take their sign down).

As for every decision one makes being a "choice", well I have a problem with "that" line of thought too.
Darrel
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
3FULLMAGS+1
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: S.W. corner of stark. co.

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by 3FULLMAGS+1 »

3FULLMAGS+1 wrote:
mreising wrote:It is a real stretch to hold a business responsible for the actions of another. I would rather see the signs be made to not have the force of law and that you would only be in jeopardy if you were asked to leave and refused. That is what some states have.
This is where I stand on the issue also.

The Force of law needs to go, and if it does, it doesn't, through fear of a lawsuit, force a bus. owner to do something they don't want to do, (take their sign down).

As for every decision one makes being a "choice", well I have a problem with "that" line of thought too.
I know of someone in a particulair line of work that has only two places he can do business with in this part of the state and both of them post, which means he has to be unarmed all day because he "HAS" to do business with them, AND THAT"S NOT RIGHT EITHER....it is NOT a choice to do business with them, he is forced to, and don't bother arguing with me

There needs to be give and take on both sides of the argument, and getting rid of the force of law is about the only way to respect both sides in this debate. And letting property owners post, lets those of us who carry , know who respects "our" rights and who doesn't, and who we want to patronize or not.
Darrel
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by M-Quigley »

mreising wrote:It is a real stretch to hold a business responsible for the actions of another. I would rather see the signs be made to not have the force of law and that you would only be in jeopardy if you were asked to leave and refused. That is what some states have.
It has nothing to do with the actions of the criminal, it has to do with creating the conditions where a person is essentially defenseless against the criminal by proactively putting up a sign which has the force of law by itself. I agree with the bolded however.
Kenosis
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:04 pm
Location: Williams County, Ohio

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by Kenosis »

mreising wrote:It is a real stretch to hold a business responsible for the actions of another. I would rather see the signs be made to not have the force of law and that you would only be in jeopardy if you were asked to leave and refused. That is what some states have.
Your property, your liability.
Kenosis
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:04 pm
Location: Williams County, Ohio

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by Kenosis »

WY_Not wrote:Still a matter of choice. No one is forced to work in a particular place or park in a particular place.
No one is forced to operate a business in this country, either. Any given owner is more than welcome to take their business to Canada, Mexico, or overseas; and many do.

Wherever you choose to headquarter your business, you should respect the rights of the local people of that land.
Kenosis
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:04 pm
Location: Williams County, Ohio

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by Kenosis »

M-Quigley wrote:
mreising wrote:It is a real stretch to hold a business responsible for the actions of another. I would rather see the signs be made to not have the force of law and that you would only be in jeopardy if you were asked to leave and refused. That is what some states have.
It has nothing to do with the actions of the criminal, it has to do with creating the conditions where a person is essentially defenseless against the criminal by proactively putting up a sign which has the force of law by itself. I agree with the bolded however.
I have to agree. I respect such signs even when they do not have force of law. If I choose to disarm and enter a posted establishment, that property owner has assumed all responsibility and liability for my safety. Should the owner fail and a crime incur, the owner will be paying my medical bills, loss of wages, and punitive damages. That's the rule they set when they posted their sign, that they will pay for my damages.
Post Reply