They are not currently liable since, after all, you voluntarily chose to enter those places knowing that you couldn't carry, didn't you? At least, that's what I think the premise is.
That's one premise. Another is that by requiring you to disarm they are assuming responsibility for your safety. After all, if you ask them why they have a "no guns" policy, they'll tell you it's to increase the safety of their patrons. Since they're taking steps to ensure your safety while on their property, and those steps include disarming you, it's reasonable for you to assume that they're taking on the responsibility for your protection.Car Knocker said:They are not currently liable since, after all, you voluntarily chose to enter those places knowing that you couldn't carry, didn't you? At least, that's what I think the premise is.
Why are they exempt from this liability? I don't see anything in the law that indemnifies them.Cinhil said:According to our AG Mark Shurtleff, any place which refuses you your right to carry is liable for your safety to, while at and on your way home from that place. The only exceptions are churches which don't allow carry and individual residences.
Amen brother!!! Thats why we need this law.bane said:PW, the good thing about laws like this being passed is that they open up the way for argumentation by deduction. In other words, even though this bill only protects our right to carry firearm in our vehicles on private property and assigns liability in the case we are prevented from exercising this right... it could later be used to argue that carrying a firearm on one's person is little different than carrying it in one's private vehicle.
Though laws like this certainly don't make such arguments SOLID, they definitely give room to stand on them.