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.