A bill filed by a right wingnut republican freshman:

HB 96 
Allows persons authorized to carry firearms under chapter 571 to sue for certain injuries sustained on the property of business enterprises that voluntarily prohibit firearms.
Sponsor: Schroer, Nick (107)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2017
LR Number: 0523H.03I
Last Action: 12/01/2016 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 96
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

Think about that for a second. He wants to impose open and conceal carry on every business.

The bill text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 96 [pdf]
99TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SCHROER.
0523H.03I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to firearms.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.069, to read as follows:

571.069. 1. Any business enterprise electing to prohibit the possession of firearms or other arms by the placement of signs as authorized under section 571.107, or other provisions of chapter 571, shall assume custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person who is authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 while such person is on the premises of the business enterprise. The provisions of this section shall not apply to private property not used for commercial purposes or private residences of any type. For purposes of this section, “business enterprise” means any business that sells or provides goods or services to the general public.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the requirement to ensure safety and defense under subsection 1 of this section shall include a mandatory and explicit duty to defend persons authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 against the intentional or reckless conduct of third parties including, but not limited to, persons who are trespassers, employees, customers, or other invitees of the business enterprise. The requirement to ensure safety and defense shall also include a duty to defend persons authorized to carry firearms or other arms against vicious animals and wild animals. The duty to defend such persons under this subsection shall apply only to the defense against conduct that could reasonably have been prevented by the use of arms in lawful self defense. If a business enterprise restricts the possession of firearms or other arms under chapter 571, then such business shall post, together with the notice and sign required under section 571.107, notice stating that persons authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 are under the custodial responsibility of the business entity.
3. A person authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, or suffers property damage as a result of conduct breaching the duty to defend such person shall have a cause of action against a business entity prohibiting the possession of firearms or other arms under chapter 571.
4. The standard of proof for tort actions under this section shall require that a plaintiff show by preponderance of the evidence that:
(a) He or she was authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571;
(b) He or she was lawfully prohibited from carrying firearms or other arms by reason of a sign voluntarily posted by a business enterprise under section 571.107;
(c) He or she was prohibited from carrying firearms by a business enterprise that is not required to prohibit firearms or other arms under state or federal law or by a rule or policy enacted by a political subdivision or the state contracting with such business entity; and
(d) The business enterprise’s prohibition on carrying firearms or other arms was the proximate cause of the damages, loss, or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
5. If a plaintiff is successful in a lawsuit under this section, then he or she shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness costs, and court costs.
6. The statute of limitations for an action under this section shall be two years from the date of the occurrence giving rise to the damages, loss, or injury.

[emphasis in original]

Here’s what should and will probably happen if this moronic bill becomes law: Business owners who post “no guns” will require anyone with a gun (who is not a commissioned peace officer) who they will not allow to enter with that weapon to sign a legal waiver before they are allowed on their premises without the gun.

Here’s what I plan on doing, even in our present environment. If I’m shopping at a business establishment and I observe someone openly carrying a gun (who is not a uniformed commissioned peace officer) I will abandon the items I intended on purchasing from that establishment where I stand and promptly exit. I will not return to that establishment. I will inform the management/owner that I will take my consumer dollars elsewhere. In a world where on-line shopping is easy this does not present a particular hardship for me as a consumer. It does present a hardship for a brick and mortar business establishment which relies on actual customers buying stuff on their premises.

If I am at a restaurant and I observe someone openly carrying a gun (who is not a uniformed commissioned officer) I will promptly leave the establishment, not waiting to order or complete my meal if at a later stage. I will not return to that establishment. I will inform the management/owner that I will take my business elsewhere.

Money talks and walks.