, , , , , ,

Another gun bill, pre-filed on December 20th:

HB 300
Provides that if a business enterprise posts to prohibit the possession of concealed firearms on the property, the posting entity assumes responsibility for the safety of a person permitted to carry a firearm if harmed on the property.
Sponsor: Moon, Mike (157)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2017
LR Number:
Last Action:
12/20/2016 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 300
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill summary [pdf]:

This bill makes a business that posts signs prohibiting concealed firearms liable for injuries or damages sustained by individuals, who would otherwise be authorized to carry firearms, while on the premises of that business. By posting signs prohibiting firearms the business would assume a duty to defend its customers. The business would be held responsible for the intention or reckless conduct of third parties, including trespasser. The bill authorizes the injured individual to sue the business and if successful, recover attorneys’ fees, expert witness costs, and court costs. This bill is similar to HB 96 (2017) and HB 2663 (2016).

“…This bill is similar to HB 96 (2017)…” Ooh, with refinements. Because freshman right wingnuts shouldn’t have all the fun.

The bill text:

HOUSE BILL NO. 300 [pdf]

0735H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk


To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to liability for concealed firearm exclusion in certain locations.

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 571.068, to read as follows:
571.068. 1. Any business enterprise authorized to post signs on property prohibiting the possession of a concealed firearm by a person authorized to carry a concealed firearm under sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall assume absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of the endorsement or permit holder while such person is on the premises of the business enterprise and on any property owned by the business enterprise that the endorsement or permit holder is required to traverse in order to travel to and from the location where the endorsement or permit holder’s firearm is stored. The provisions of this section shall not apply to private property not used for commercial purposes or to 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. The responsibility of the business enterprise for the safety and defense of the endorsement or permit holder shall extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, or employees of the business enterprise.
3. (1) Any firearm carry endorsement or permit holder who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage, or any other compensable loss as a result of the conduct occurring on property where signs are posted prohibiting concealed firearms shall have a cause of action against the business enterprise posting such signs so long as such person is an invitee on such property. In addition to damages, such person shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.
(2) The statute of limitations for an action under this subsection shall be two years from the date of the occurrence giving rise to the damages, loss, or injury.
4. Any notice or sign prohibiting concealed firearms on the property shall also contain language citing the provisions of this section and stating that any endorsement or permit holder on the posted property is under the custodial responsibility of the business enterprise.
5. To prevail in an action brought under this section, the plaintiff shall show by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) The plaintiff was authorized to carry a concealed firearm under sections 571.101 to 571.121 at the time of the incident giving rise to the action;
(2) The plaintiff was prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm on the property where the incident occurred because signs were posted prohibiting concealed firearms on the property;
(3) The property was not required to post signs prohibiting concealed firearms on the property by state or federal law but was posted by choice of the defendant; and
(4) The business enterprise’s prohibition on carrying concealed firearms or other arms was the proximate cause of the damages, loss, or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
6. This section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose.

[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….


HB 96: gun humpers in the General Assembly want to hold everyone else hostage (December 8, 2016)

Rep. Stacey Newman (D): about those guns… (December 12, 2016)