One would assume that the self-proclaimed party of personal liberty, freedom, and all that, the party that complains about onerous regulations strangling business, would respect a person’s wishes regarding whether or not guns should be allowed in their business, right?
Well, of course they do. Provided that anyone who doesn’t want guns in their business is held liable for any damages that occur if it is found that the presence of a weapon “may have” prevented injury -- while, at the same time, anyone who allows weapons on their property is immune from any injuries that do result. At least, that’s the way small government patriot, Missouri state Representative Caleb Jones (R), wants it to be.
According to the text of the bill:
571.124. 1. Any private business that displays signage which prohibits public invitees, business visitors, and employees from carrying a concealed weapon on the premises owned or occupied by such private business shall be liable for any injury or damages incurred by such public invitees, business visitors, and employees as a result of such prohibition if such public invitee, business visitor, or employee establishes by a preponderance of evidence that having access to a firearm may have prevented his or her injury or damage.
2. Any private business that does not prohibit public invitees, business visitors, and employees from carrying a concealed weapon on the premises owned or occupied by such private business shall be immune from any liability arising from its decision to permit concealed weapons to be carried on business premises.
Hat tip Think Progress. How’s that for small government? Small enough to decide what’s best for you, on your own property. Not surprising, though, for the party that wants to police the womb. And, apparently, arm it.
Also published at: http://rachelshobbithole.blogspot.com/...