Making businesses allow guns or be held liable is questionable proposal

I agree that bill SB 610 is a bad idea, but before I go on let me be clear about a few things. I believe in the stand your ground law and also that law-abiding people have a right to own a gun to protect themselves, for hunting, etc. I don’t want to have some people get all uptight and bent out of shape thinking I’m one of those take-away-your-gun commie-liberals.

But I think businesses have the right to ban guns from their property without fear of lawsuits or retribution from Tallahassee. One question comes to mind: If a business allows gun permit owners to carry their guns on the premises and the scenario that these NRA-backed politicians talk about does happen to play out — where a so-called bad guy and good guy do get into a firefight and an innocent bystander gets killed or injured — wouldn’t the business owner still be legally responsible for the collateral damage because he did allow guns to be carried on the premises?

Also, like the Herald pointed out, how does the police officer arriving on the scene know who to go after if they are both firing guns?

I got a suggestion: Why don’t we also make the politicians who pass this law also liable for the collateral damage that this law creates and use their own money to defend themselves from the innocent victim’s families from the lawsuits that would be sure to follow this kind of shootout — no taxpayer money to be used to settle the suit either.

Second question: Why is the Manatee Chamber of Commerce so quiet on this issue? Aren’t they supposed to represent the business community?

This story was originally published February 9, 2017 at 4:12 PM with the headline "Making businesses allow guns or be held liable is questionable proposal."