PDA

View Full Version : Gun-Free-Zone Liability laws


Scarecrow Repair
12-11-2007, 8:30 PM
This from the Gun Law mailing list:

In the wake of recent public shootings, at least one state will again introduce the bill that says if you create a so-called "gun-free zone" you are liable for any harm it causes. The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act of 2008 doesn't prevent public places from posting signs that ban the civil right to keep and bear arms. The zones however are known to be dangerous, as recent shootings at Virginia Tech and an Omaha shopping mall have demonstrated. The proposed law only addresses the negligent nature of such zones, making those responsible for disarming innocent bystanders liable for damages. It has no direct cost to government.

http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

Paladin
12-11-2007, 8:38 PM
It's an intriguing idea.

Anyone know what the professionals at the NRA think about it?

chiefcrash
12-11-2007, 9:14 PM
aren't the property owners already liable if someone gets injured on their property?

5968
12-11-2007, 9:34 PM
This from the Gun Law mailing list:



http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

I think it is a great idea.

DrjonesUSA
12-11-2007, 10:39 PM
This from the Gun Law mailing list:



http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm


I support this and hope it has UNLIMITED PERSONAL LIABILITY (NOT corporate or government) for those involved in disarming law-abiding American Citizens.

Since they are so sure their ideas work, let them put their money where their mouths are......literally.

Phantom_Piney
12-12-2007, 8:31 AM
This is a great idea and I wholeheartedly support it, sure would be great if it gained traction across the nation. :iagree:

Bizcuits
12-12-2007, 9:08 AM
I support this and hope it has UNLIMITED PERSONAL LIABILITY (NOT corporate or government) for those involved in disarming law-abiding American Citizens.

Since they are so sure their ideas work, let them put their money where their mouths are......literally.

+1

:iagree:

Would be nice to fight fire with fire.

hoffmang
12-12-2007, 11:26 AM
There is potential tort liability, yes - but statute liability is always superior in gaining compliance.

I've long been a fan of these. It would also help manage the employers banning firearms in parking lots locked in cars problem.

-Gene

berto
12-12-2007, 11:35 AM
so much for property rights

MudCamper
12-12-2007, 11:45 AM
so much for property rights

Nonsense. You don't want people carrying guns on your property? Then don't allow them on your property. That's your right. But if you want to make your property public, like a mall, or a school, then you are voluntarily allowing others on your property.

Rhys898
12-12-2007, 11:48 AM
It makes total sense. If you as the owner of a public place are unwilling to allow people to protect themselves you have taken upon yourself the responsibility to protect them. Private individuals get sued for accidents that occur on their property, even if the person that was injured was not invited in the first place.

Why shouldn't business and commercial property owners who make a conscious decision to disarm their customers be held liable for deaths and injuries resulting from those decisions? By making their properties gun free zones they are basically painting targets on the backs of everyone there, employees and customers alike. If they aren't willing to hire armed security to protect those employees and customers then they should be held responsible.

Jer

Scarecrow Repair
12-12-2007, 12:17 PM
so much for property rights

We live in a society populated by other people; in fact, that's what makes it a society. I'd hate to live in a world populated by myself alone.

That means rights collide. If you think you should be able to do whatever you want, absolutely anything, with your property, then how would you like it if your neighbor built up a slaughterhouse on his property, right up to your property line, and belched those wonderful smells all day long, plus the building was so high that it blocked the sun and you were in almost perpetual shadow?

Courts have ruled that if the walk up to your front door is publicly accessible, like to the mailman, package delivery, etc, then you can't do things there that you can do inside your home. This does include carrying a gun, I believe, but it also no doubt includes having sex on the front lawn.

If you have a store, do you invite the general public in? Do you want all the CCW holders to take off their gun before entering? Are you going to provide some kind of lockbox for the gun and armed security guards to replace their vigilance?

Piper
12-13-2007, 6:56 AM
If we had a law like this in California, I'd charge the state and every county and municipality and their agents with this law. Stores and malls are the least of our problems, they will come around when people refuse to disarm just to shop at their stores. It's the government that is the royal PITA when it comes to second amendment freedoms.