So, what's next in the legislature? A proposal.

[jdege]

So, what's next in the legislature?

Looks like the GOP will control both houses of the MN legislature.

Are there pro-gun bills we want to push?

There's one idea I would like to throw on the pile - a bill to remove liability to businesses for the actions of permitted carriers.

When we passed the shall-issue bill, back in 2003, there was some discussion about adding strict liability for acts of violence committed against permit holders in premises that forbade them to carry. This got significant opposition from the business community, and was dropped.

I think we were going about it the wrong way.

My employer, back in 2003, had no policy against permitted carry. About six years back we got a government contract that required a certain level of insurance, and the insurer mandated a no-weapons policy, with no exception for permitted carriers.

So now I work in a place that bans carry. To change that, I don't need to convince my boss, I need to convince his insurer. And mostly, I need to convince the lawyers who are telling the insurer that they will be at increased risk without a no-weapons policy.

What could we do that would convince those lawyers?

How about a statute that declares that employers are not liable for acts committed by permitted carriers, unless the employer bans carry?

The intent is to create a situation at which a company that bans carry is clearly at greater legal risk than one that does not. In that situation, I would expect to see insurers rolling back their no-carry provisions.

Comments?

Do you think such a bill could be drafted?

Could it pass?

Would it have the effect I'd intend?

[dismal]

Just a thought, we still have Gov. Goofy Eyes, who will veto most any rights expansion.

[Sorcerer]

The only hope would be they can over ride a veto by Google eyes.

[jdege]

Just a thought, we still have Gov. Goofy Eyes, who will veto most any rights expansion.

It's taken us 30 years of losses, wins, vetoes, veto overrides, etc., to get shall-issue mostly nationwide.

I don't think that this would magically win, everywhere.

We need control of the legislature to get it passed. That will begin the conversation, whether it is vetoed or not.

[MJY65]

Just a thought, we still have Gov. Goofy Eyes, who will veto most any rights expansion.

BTW: What are the odds that he resigns for 'heath reasons" before the end of 2017 to tee it up for his LG to run in 2018?

[Bearcatrp]

Just a thought, we still have Gov. Goofy Eyes, who will veto most any rights expansion.

BTW: What are the odds that he resigns for 'heath reasons" before the end of 2017 to tee it up for his LG to run in 2018?

Maybe, if we are lucky, he will choke on his tongue trying to talk and keel over. Lets hope he leaves before his time is up!

[MJY65]

Just a thought, we still have Gov. Goofy Eyes, who will veto most any rights expansion.

BTW: What are the odds that he resigns for 'heath reasons" before the end of 2017 to tee it up for his LG to run in 2018?

Maybe, if we are lucky, he will choke on his tongue trying to talk and keel over. Lets hope he leaves before his time is up!

I'm not so sure we want that. Better not to run against an incumbent in 2018. He's a lame duck right now and really can't do much damage.

[jdege]

I don't want to discourage complaining about Governor Dayton, but I was wondering what people thought of my idea.

Do you see the frequency with which employers ban carry to be a problem we need to address?

Do you think that legislative action to remove employer liability would be an effective way of addressing it?

[Ghost]

I like the concept. I never carried at work for risk of being fired, I don't care about signs.

I like where you are going though. Smarter people than I can dig into the details.

[Sorcerer]

I would think that the removal of employer liability will have little effect on work place carry. For the most part if your employer bans guns they will ban guns any way. It's a "feel good thing".

[jdege]

It's my impression that most businesses that ban carry do so because their insurers require a no weapons policy, with no exclusion for permitted carry.

It's also my impression that they do so because their lawyers tell them that not doing so exposes then to legal liability.

And it's my belief that said lawyers have no actual evidence to back that opinion.

What I want to create is a situation where it is perfectly clear that banning permitted carry increases liability.

We tried to do that, back in 2003, by placing additional liability on businesses that banned carry, and encountered too much legal opposition from the business community to procede.

What I'm thinking is that if we approached it from the other direction, removing liability from businesses that do not ban permitted carry, we might have more success.

To make it work, though, we'd need to keep it focused. We'd need a law that removed liability only for businesses that do not ban permitted carry. Businesses that do ban carry should receive no protection.

[atomic41]

On a Federal level, pass the Hearing Protection Act.

[xd ED]

It's my impression that most businesses that ban carry do so because their insurers require a no weapons policy, with no exclusion for permitted carry.

It's also my impression that they do so because their lawyers tell them that not doing so exposes then to legal liability.

And it's my belief that said lawyers have no actual evidence to back that opinion.

What I want to create is a situation where it is perfectly clear that banning permitted carry increases liability.

We tried to do that, back in 2003, by placing additional liability on businesses that banned carry, and encountered too much legal opposition from the business community to procede.

What I'm thinking is that if we approached it from the other direction, removing liability from businesses that do not ban permitted carry, we might have more success.

To make it work, though, we'd need to keep it focused. We'd need a law that removed liability only for businesses that do not ban permitted carry. Businesses that do ban carry should receive no protection.

I think you are way too eager to use govt regulation and threats of legal action to interfere with one's right to operate his business, and maintain a relationship with his employees as he sees fit.

Forcing a business to allow firearms might well limit their ability to conduct business.
I am retired, but in a previous life, as a residential service tech, had I been allowed to be armed, I am quite sure many customers would have quit doing business with us/ not allowed me on to their property.

Further, in the event of a shooting incident by an employee, the rewards for getting around your law, and into the employer's deep pockets would be too great a temptation for most personal injury lawyers to ignore.

I believe it would be hard to argue the reasonableness of a law that said if I beat up someone while on the job, the company would be liable, but if I caused injury with a firearm the company allowed, then the company is immune.

My $0.02

[2in2out]

On a Federal level, pass the Hearing Protection Act.

This is what I want to see. On the state level, I hadn't given it much thought, because I didn't consider it possible that the Republicans would get both the Senate and the House.

State-wise, this is an excellent discussion to have. Make hay while the sun shines, they say. Take advantage of the opportunity.

So much for a Universal Registration Background check bill this time around, thank goodness. They will be there when it's their turn, however.

[jdege]

Forcing a business to allow firearms might well limit their ability to conduct business.

I don't see anything in my proposal that would force a business to allow firearms. What I'm looking for is a way to stop insurance companies from requiring businesses to ban firearms.