UtahJarhead wrote:I'm positive there's a law that says businesses will not be held liable if a person on their property commits an illegal act with a firearm (discharge, etc). However, I can't find it in Snurd's pamphlet or the laws links that Jeff Johnson posted YEARS ago.
You guys remember what statute it is?
Edit: I know that 53-5a-103 protects that, but I thought there was another one. Maybe I'm just misremembering.
Utah Law wrote:53-5a-103. Discharge of firearm on private property -- Liability.
(1) Except as provided under Subsection (2), a private property owner, who knowingly allows a person who has a permit to carry a concealed firearm under Section 53-5-704 to bring the firearm onto the owner's property, is not civilly or criminally liable for any damage or harm resulting from the discharge of the firearm by the permit holder while on the owner's property.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the property owner solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids the concealed firearm permit holder in discharging the firearm while on the owner's property.
UtahJarhead wrote:Thanks, my brother! I hope you're doing well.
You guys crack me up! I've missed your gentle bantering. Good to see that the Jarhead is still breathing (and not incarcerated)Snurd wrote:Just shaved recently. It was amazing.
Aad Geordie wrote:You guys crack me up! I've missed your gentle bantering. Good to see that the Jarhead is still breathing (and not incarcerated)Snurd wrote:Just shaved recently. It was amazing.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest