Missouri House Bill 96

[Cnon]

Terrible legislation...just terrible.

Government overreach...if passed, it will be challenged and an injunction will put it on hold, if carried up the court ladder....SCOTUS will uphold the lower court.

How so? I've always felt that if your business disarms me, then they SHOULD be held liable!

 

[steve4102]

For those who think this proposed law is a terrible idea, and an infringement of the property owners' rights -- how do you feel about civil rights laws that prohibit businesses from refusing to serve blacks, or Hispanics, or Jews, or Muslims, or homosexuals?

If you accept those laws because they preserve a civil right, then how about adding permitted firearms carriers to the list of people who can't be discriminated against? After all, the "right" to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, so this should fall right in line with the recognition of other classes of people who can't be discriminated against because to do so is a violation of their civil rights.

Apple to oranges at best.

Civil Rights laws protect a class of people with a common physical characteristic from discrimination. They do not protect inanimate objects like firearms, skate boards, flip-flops, hats, colors, etc. You cannot be discriminated against by an organization or a business, but your inanimate object can, unless that object is covered under Civil Rights laws like a wheelchair, or a cane, or walker.

The Constitution protects us from Government infringement and Unconstitutional laws, it does not protect us from infringements from individuals, organizations and businesses.
A business can infringe on your right to possess a firearm on their property, just as a business can infringe on your right to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble on their property.
You have no "Right" to walk into a business with signs and start protesting( a constitutional right), just as you have no right to walk into a business with an inanimate object (firearm) if they say "it" is not welcome.

"Shall not be infringed" referrers to Government infringement, not individuals .

 

[BillM]

No idea if this new proposed legislation is good or bad. But it did
get me to reflect a bit on Missouri.

Missouri came LATE to concealed carry. Didn't pass "shall issue" on
permits until 2003.

Now they are Constitutional Carry, and here is more legislation proposed
that would arguably be "Pro Gun".

They have come a LONG way in just 13 years!

 

[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.

 

[motorhead0922]

So far our courts have ruled that a property owners that has a no firearms policy are not responsible for the Illegal acts of a third party.

So much so, that those that sued for damages, not only lost on legal grounds, they were stuck with paying the legal fees of the movie theater to the tune of 700+K.

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. To my knowledge, no one in the theater meets that definition. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.) So, the theater would have been unaffected in the legal outcome.

This brings up an important side note: Under this law a business would know it cannot be sued for harm by anyone without a CCW in such a scenerio.

Look, I get it that James Holmes killed all those people, not the theater owner or manager, or the worker who followed orders and stuck the No Guns sign up. But Holmes actively sought out a theater with the sign. The choice by those decision makers at the theater contributed, in a small way, to the outcome.

I wonder what the theater owner or manager or worker thought when the evidence came out that the No Guns policy is why Holmes picked their theater. I don't think they are evil; I think their hearts sank, although they would never admit that, due to the litigation.

I do support an addition to the bill, that explicity states that a business not posting a No Guns sign cannot be sued for allowing legal carry.

 

[steve4102]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

In my considered opinion, the bill is ludicrous.

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

 

[tyme]

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.