44 AMP said:
I believe the words "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution apply ONLY to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
And the governments of the respective states. See
McDonald v. Chicago.
Now let's get back to the topic: a proposed law that would NOT prevent any business from prohibiting the bearing of arms on its premises, but which simply requires that in exchange for that the business accept responsibility/liability for having deprived patrons of their constitutional right to be responsible for their own protection.
As I've already commented, businesses that are open to the public are treated differently under the law than private homes. A business that is open to the public is considered a "place of public accommodation" under the law, and over the years the courts have determined that this status gives government the right to impose certain requirements and restrictions on the business in the interest of furthering some perceived (by the .gov) societal benefit. Thus, we have various civil rights laws that have created a list of "protected classes" of people who cannot be discriminated against on the basis of the characteristic that puts them in that class, such as age, gender, religion, race, etc.
None of the current, protected classes are spelled out in the Constitution. The list was created, and has grown as more classes have been added to the list. The government can add any other characteristic it wants to the list, at any time. The government
could decide that bearing arms, as a right guaranteed by the Constitution, is a "civil right" (which I believe it is), and the government could then add arms bearers to the list pf protected classes of people who can't be discriminated against by "places of public accommodation."
But this law doesn't do that. It doesn't force business owners to admit gun bearers if the business doesn't like guns. It simple says, "Okay, you can prohibit guns, but then if a person who wanted to be armed in your place of business gets shot by a robber, you're liable." It's a simple trade-off, a business decision. Economically, is it more advantageous to the business to allow people to carry guns, or is it more advantageous to the business (using whatever metrics the owner chooses to evaluate the perceived benefits) to prohibit guns and to buy insurance to pay for someone being shot if the place gets held up?
Doesn't the government do the same thing to you regarding your personal motor vehicle? In fact, they don't even give you a choice. I don't think there's any state in which it's legal to operate a motor vehicle without carrying liability insurance.
