Anti-Second Amendment businesses have cropped up across the country and Missouri may just hit back with a bill in the 2017 legislative session that would hold these gun-control promoting businesses responsible for harm to concealed carry permit holders caused by having to disarm.
Missouri state Representative Mike Moon (R-Ash Grove) sponsored the bill, which “would cover employees as well as customers,” according to Breitbart.
The bill is a brilliant counter-point to anti-Second Amendment businesses that often espouse the belief that somehow refusing to allow law-abiding permit holders to arm themselves in their business somehow keeps the establishment safer.
If the bill passes, these businesses now have to really put their money where their mouths are. Since they will be liable if someone is hurt because they weren’t able to arm themselves, they’ll have to really believe their assertion that disarming their patrons keeps them safer — especially if the consequence to the business owner is steep enough (aside from the consequence of knowing that someone was harmed because of your policies, of course).
The Joplin Globe reported on the bill:
Moon’s bill would hold private businesses that prohibit guns liable for the safety of anyone who is legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon but is prevented from doing so by the business and who suffers injury or other “compensable” damage in an attack in which the permit holder could theoretically have defended himself if he had been allowed to keep his weapon on him.
“Private, commercial businesses,” are the focus of the bill and as Moon discussed, he believes it is necessary, as a concealed carry permit holder unarmed because of a business’ policy has no “promise of success” should an attack take place in a gun-free business.
Moon discussed the bill:
Kind of where this thing started was with business owners who were adamantly opposed to those who carry firearms. What would happen if a third party came on and committed a crime and there was bodily injuries sustained to the patrons? Who is liable? And as I’m talking to legal minds — attorneys particularly — apparently there’s still a lot of gray area there on who’s actually responsible. I believe that the third party is responsible but apparently there are some unanswered questions and so hopefully this bill will reveal some of those.