Liability is coming to the fore…

Gah… On the road and didn’t check, per my luck, scheduler didn’t… Sorry!

This is one of those bills/issues that are creeping out of committees nationwide, concerning liability of banning guns without adequate security measures…

Kansas Senators on Tuesday backed away from a contentious floor debate on the state’s concealed carry law, opting instead to send a bill back to committee that would allow several types of medical providers to ban guns in their facilities.

This one centers around the University of Kansas Hospital wanting to ban guns in their facilities without having to place metal detectors and armed guards at each entrance to ensure visitor safety.

Full article, HERE.

Tennessee looked at something similar last year, or the year before, and I’m hearing other states at least have similar bills percolating in committee…

With a new administration in DC, these bills could move forward AND get support, unlike the previous eight years.

Your thoughts?


Liability is coming to the fore… — 14 Comments

  1. Hey Old NFO;

    From what I can tell…This stuff is written by Lawyers to absolve responsibility of the location for security and shaft the honest CCW owners at the same time….unless I am missing something…

  2. Gun grabbers are clustered in certain groups and businesses. Failing to ban outright, they will never stop making carrying a firearm as difficult as possible, IMO. Every incremental nuisance is a victory for them. They flat out do not respect us.

    • While, when dealing with the Left, I do tend to “Don’t attribute to stupidity what can be explained by smug moral superiority”, in the case of Gun Control nuts I think there is a strong seam of real fear. It isn’t well founded fear, but it is real. I only mention it because I think that changes the most effective approach for dealing with them politically.

  3. Here in CO anyplace can ask you to leave , and if you refuse to then they can sign a trespass complaint on you .
    However unless they control access with metal detectors it is not in and of its self criminal to carry anywhere except inside k-12 schools. Even courthouses had to set up metal detectors and security guards .

  4. Bob- The original was exactly that, this ‘new’ bill rolls that back, IFAIK…

    WSF- Good point.

    FD- Yes, CO and a few other states are that way. Others no so ‘enlightened’

  5. My thoughts?

    I love magic signs. They never seem to work, and don’t inconvenience me unless backed up by goons with metal detectors.

    I choose to ignore the stupid fucking things. In my state, the worst that can happen is a trespassing charge, and I’ll happily leave the premises if asked.

    Scofflaw I am, but I’m content to pay for it if caught, which is damned unlikely, unless I actually need my piece.

  6. There’s a couple of “complications” in this KS law. First up is that they passed a “carry anywhere” but gave facilities 4 years to get security in place. Second is 1/2 way through that 4 years, they passed Constitutional Carry.

    So now the libs (college professors, mostly) are complaining that it’s the lack of training that makes this special.

    And KU Med Center is a triple whammy. It’s a campus with multiple buildings with multiple entrances to each – so metal detectors would be big $$$. And it’s both a hospital AND a university (populated by lots of college professors). And it also treats some mental patients as well.

    Add in that KS has budget balancing problems, and spending state dollars for security is not affordable, but “cutting” funds for medical or mental health care is not politically feasible.

    Of course, the schools and hospitals HAD 4 years to adjust their budgets – or just resign themselves to complying with the law….

  7. Frankly, if I had my way AND it was politically necessary to allow them to ban firearms, I would give them a bill that allowed them to set up (supposed) No Gun zones, and let them omit metal detectors and guards, BUT left them liable for suit is there was an incident in one of the zones, since they had declared that they would be gun free.

    They announce that they administer a zone with laws different from the background, they get to catch the grief if something goes wrong.

  8. I’m usually OK with Private Company X establishing its own operating rules because I can go elsewhere to spend my money, and Amazon et al doesn’t seem to care if we shop naked while wearing two guns and a party hat.

    Hospitals, however, have me wondering; what is the impact of public accommodation laws and regulations on how they may operate? Federal law states that no one may be turned away from an emergency room, does that include someone carrying a gun? Uncle pointed out t’other day that there are now >15 million CWP holders (plus however many in states that have a form of Constitutional carry and don’t require permits), so it looks to be about 5% or better of the population is, or could be, packing heat. What happens if one of them is brought in to the hospital unconscious with a G19 on their hip?

    And, if I have a right to defend my life with an appropriate tool on the sidewalk out front, or in the parking lot, is there legal or Constitutional justification for giving up that right when I visit a friend after his surgery? Is the hospital accepting legal and economic liability for my safety while I’m visiting him? Does that include the parking lot if I must leave my gun in the car while visiting, or are they required to maintain gun lockers if they have metal detectors? Just as important, what kind of security is in front of the metal detectors? Long lines in the lobby are obvious targets.

  9. Kinda dumb, really.

    Fixes a problem that does not exist.

    Has serious problems for people seeking medical care as it puts hospitals in a conundrum with the EMTALA of 1985 and this new law. Also puts blockades in the way of people getting access to direct the medical care of their child/unconscious loved one/etc.

    Pretty sure the EMTALA issue is a serious one that could get the hospital in big trouble with the Feds. Should harm befall the stricken patient that was avoidable before the implementation of the law, the hospital is in a case they cannot win.

  10. Pingback: More Liability, this time Tennessee... - Nobody Asked Me...

  11. What problem are they trying to solve? Trying to prevent carrying a concealed weapon by a criminal or someone with criminal intent cannot be accomplished by signs or laws. I’d think this is common knowledge by now.

    Designating a mental health facility as a gun free zone is not a good idea. Preventing the mentally ill from owning or having access to a weapon is, generally speaking, a good idea. Just how this can be accomplished, I can’t imagine. I’d guess the client’s family would have to monitor the mentally ill patient, but they may be a bit nuts as well.

    I don’t know. I don’t have any solutions today.