TN Businesses That Disarm CCP Holders Liable For Safety

This is a Forum to discuss issues relating to gun control vs. the right to keep and bear arms in the United states and Utah. Please be respectful of everyone's opinions.

Re: TN Businesses That Disarm CCP Holders Liable For Safety

Postby gravedancer » Thu 07 Jul 2016 1:51 pm

Cinhil wrote:I posed a reply two days ago and today it looks like it is mysteriously gone. Is the new admin is censoring info they do not like. I guess I may have to contact them and ask why? Especially as it is the most emphatic concerning the issue in question. Maybe if we are lucky the admin will sneakily replace it in order so the information is available again, it was still there this morning. :bat:


If it was the reply saying you would see if you could find the law, I remember seeing that reply, but its now gone.
Image
http://bit.ly/2vHUiug will get you around the auto filtering of the domain on this site
gravedancer
Sniper
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2011 1:46 pm

Re: TN Businesses That Disarm CCP Holders Liable For Safety

Postby gravedancer » Thu 07 Jul 2016 1:53 pm

Cinhil wrote:Surprisingly, my original response mysteriously showed up, and looks like it is back in proper order of posts to. :?:


Nope its gone again.
Image
http://bit.ly/2vHUiug will get you around the auto filtering of the domain on this site
gravedancer
Sniper
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2011 1:46 pm

Re: TN Businesses That Disarm CCP Holders Liable For Safety

Postby Cinhil » Thu 07 Jul 2016 9:15 pm

Yes, it looks like the post was removed, again??? :disgusted: See below fr where you may get the info:

Cinhil wrote:Read Section 78-7-6 of Utah State Code, or go to page 90 of the 3rd edition of Utah Gun Law by Mitch Vilos. Read through the commentary by Mitch at the end of the discussion on this code as it verifies what I have said, as well as that of our former AG and Mitch, who is an attorney, especially concerning when someone, or an entity removes/restricts anothers right and their liability for their safety. My original answer was much more involved and I do not have the time to re enter all the info I provided previously. The answer is there.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is not being abused today!

Even Knights had "Modern" weapons!

'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."
User avatar
Cinhil
Sniper
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri 24 Jun 2005 1:31 am

Re: TN Businesses That Disarm CCP Holders Liable For Safety

Postby jfwright1955 » Fri 08 Jul 2016 6:17 am

I would expect (hope) that if admin's are responsible for removing content they would at least have the courtesy to post the reason(s) as to why it was removed. Given Cinhil gave reference and credit to Mitch and his book along with the snippet of text to share for educational purposes only I can't believe it would have been for perceived copyright infringement. :disgusted:
John
NRA RSO
No one should make decisions for us when it comes to guns and gun carry. If we do things we're not comfortable with because someone told us it's 'right' it becomes a distraction in an event where clarity and simplicity is needed.
User avatar
jfwright1955
Sniper
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun 13 Jan 2013 9:15 am
Location: Marana, AZ

Re: TN Businesses That Disarm CCP Holders Liable For Safety

Postby Cinhil » Fri 08 Jul 2016 10:17 am

It is back again today! This time I am reposting it here as well as saving it in a word doc if this happens again!

In Utah Gun Law by Attorney Mitch Vilos, Description concerning liability for disarmed citizens who have been denied their rights to self defense, is provided. The applicable section is U.C.A. 78-7-6, discussed on page 90 of said book. If you haven't a copy I suggest you get one and add it to your reference library. 78-7-6. Rules -- Right to make -- Limitation -- Security.
(1) Every court of record may make rules, not inconsistent with law, for its own government and the government of its officers; but such rules must neither impose any tax or charge upon any legal proceeding nor give any allowance to any officer for service.
(2) (a) The judicial council may provide, through the rules of judicial administration, for security in or about a courthouse or courtroom, or establish a secure area as prescribed in Section 76-8-311.1.
(b) (i) If the council establishes a secure area under Subsection (2)(a), it shall provide a secure firearms storage area on site so that persons with lawfully carried firearms may store them while they are in the secure area.
(ii) The entity operating the facility with the secure area shall be responsible for the firearms while they are stored in the storage area referred to in Subsection (2)(b)(i).
(iii) The entity may not charge a fee to individuals for storage of their firearms under Subsection (2)(b)(i).
(3) (a) Unless authorized by the rules of judicial administration, any person who knowingly or intentionally possesses a firearm, ammunition, or dangerous weapon within a secure area established by the judicial council under this section is guilty of a third degree felony.
(b) Any person is guilty of violating Section 76-10-306 who transports, possesses, distributes, or sells an explosive, chemical, or incendiary device, as defined by Section 76-10-306, within a secure area, established by the Judicial Council under this section.

The commentary by Mitch in relation to this section states that where your rights are restricted by another, or by an entity, they then have responsibility for your safety and may be held liable. This is in accordance with what I was personally told by former AG Shurtleff. There's more concerning affirmative/positive court decisions on this issue which I shan't plagerize at this time. Check the book out at your local library if they have a copy, or purchase one from your local gun store. I hope this helps answer the question asked on this subject.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is not being abused today!

Even Knights had "Modern" weapons!

'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."
User avatar
Cinhil
Sniper

Posts: 3133
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:31 am
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is not being abused today!

Even Knights had "Modern" weapons!

'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."
User avatar
Cinhil
Sniper
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri 24 Jun 2005 1:31 am

Previous

Return to Gun Control Issues in the United States and Utah

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron