|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
AZ: Legislation would encourage Arizona businesses to allow guns inside
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Approved Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee, the legislation says someone injured by another person with a firearm cannot sue a business that allows weapons inside, unless there is a proof the business owner “intends to cause injury or acts with gross negligence.” But if there is a “no guns” sign at the door, the business can be held liable for simple negligence.
Dave Kopp, lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League, said the disparate treatment is justified. In telling their customers they cannot bring in their own guns, businesses are accepting some responsibility for their safety, he said. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(3/9/2017)
|
| Alabama doesn't so much need 'constitutional carry' as it needs sensible liability laws concerning self protective gun use. I'm disgusted at the community college campuses and banks that declare themselves "gun free." |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
