What to do in those gun-free zones?

If you're not sure on what is acceptable to carry into a school, play it safe and call the legal department for the State Trooper's office in your state. I called mine the other week but they were already out. I got hold of the PR line and they advised me to call legal and said they would answer my questions. I'm going to call back again soon but first I think I'm going to make a list of questions. I've been reading law statutes but still have questions accordingly. At the same time, however, I tried calling my local police station before I called State Police and they told me that they won't give out legal advice. I'm still a little confused on that one. If they don't know the law well enough to tell you what it is, then how do they know it well enough to make an arrest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majorlk

Not saying you are wrong, but do you have any substantive to support what you say? Either case law or state statute? I have a hard time buying that any business has legal responsibility to protect someone who is in their establishment of their own volition. Protect an employee - maybe - but I doubt that too.

---

You learn this legal concept in Torts 101 in your first year in law school, it has been the law for decades. One noteworthy case that I am sure you will remember is Connie Francis when you was attacked in a motel. The motel was sued and held accountable. There is case law upon case law on this issue with innkeepers in particular but it does extend to other businesses. Below is a section from the Restatement of Torts (whick is a guide that most states follow)
The Restatement of Torts, underscores this willingness of the courts to find liability when such special relationships exist, stating:


Business Premises Open to Public: Acts of Third Persons or Animals

A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons or animals, and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to:

(a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or

(b) give a warning adequate to enable visitors to avoid the harm or otherwise protect them against it.


Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 344 (l965).



A comment to the Restatement section makes clear that the existence of the duty depends, to a great extent, on the foreseeability of criminal conduct by third persons.

Duty to police premises. Since the possessor is not an insurer of the visitor's safety, he is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care until he knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur. He may, however, know or have reason to know, from past experience, that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons in general which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor, even though he has no reason to expect it on the part of any particular individual. If the place or character of his business, or his past experience, is such that he should reasonably anticipate careless or criminal conduct on the part of third persons, either generally or at some particular time, he may be under a duty to take precautions against it, and to provide a reasonably sufficient number of servants to afford a reasonable protection.


Id. Comment f.


The comment emphasizes two distinct situations in which a special duty may arise. The first occurs when the owner knows or has reason to know that a third party is harming or is about to harm a guest. At this point, the owner may be able to protect the guest only by warning him or her, alerting police authorities, or employing available security measures. The second situation may exist where the nature of the owner's business or experience provides a basis for the reasonable anticipation on the owner's part that prior or potential criminal activity may put guests at risk. In the latter scenario, the owner may be liable for failing to adopt security measures which might have prevented the third person from inflicting harm upon the guests. The distinction between these situations is critical, since the duty to foresee a general risk of criminal activity and to take necessary steps to safeguard guests from it may require substantial expenditures on the part of the owner or occupier.


Whichever approach is recognized by a jurisdiction under a given set of facts, however, the issue which must also be addressed is that of foreseeability.

Just carry a large apple size rock with you, and remember its winter now. So remember those long wool tube socks? Ware them. when in trouble put that rock in the sock and swing away.

Here : it's legal to conceal carry if licensed, in / at schools if they are not posted. Posting, applies ONLY to the building itself. Out of about 15 school buildings around me, (yep, there's a lot), I know of only one that's posted.

Per Fedl Law ; If you are licensed by the State, that includes a background check, etc... and the State allows it, then it's legal to carry.

Stoner: Thank you for the education; I stand corrected. That's my learning experience for the day. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majorlk

Stoner: Thank you for the education; I stand corrected. That's my learning experience for the day. :)

---

Sure thing Majorlk. I lived a little north of you a few years ago in Pittsfield in the Berkshires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timezoneguy

Some day somebody will sue because they were harmed because they followed the stupid signs. Example a legal carrying person disarmed to follow the rules and then somebody who ignores the sign comes in and does harm with a gun. Am I the only one who asks "if you prevent me from protecting myself then who will?" Looks like to me a reasonable jury would conclude, that in todays world, there is a reasonable chance of a person neeeding personal protection in a gun free zone. I see it everywhere it makes me crazy!!!!!!!!!!

---

+1 on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timezoneguy

Some day somebody will sue because they were harmed because they followed the stupid signs. Example a legal carrying person disarmed to follow the rules and then somebody who ignores the sign comes in and does harm with a gun. Am I the only one who asks "if you prevent me from protecting myself then who will?" Looks like to me a reasonable jury would conclude, that in todays world, there is a reasonable chance of a person neeeding personal protection in a gun free zone. I see it everywhere it makes me crazy!!!!!!!!!!

---

I hope that the first test case is against a state like MD or NJ where most (effectively all) are barred from armed self preservation. I carry everywhere that is legal but I have MD on my Southern and Western borders and NJ to the East my only legally armed exit is PA to the North.

In a classroom there are dozen of weapons.

Fire extinguisher (Spray into face blind attacker) or beat them with it.
Flagpole impact weapon.
Chairs to keep distance.
Scissors.
Pencils
Desks to shore up the door.

Put me in a Science class. Watch out. Heck, I may go on the attack. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKinNY

In a classroom there are dozen of weapons.


Put me in a Science class. Watch out. Heck, I may go on the attack. :wink:

---

Stop it, you mean counter-attack right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noway2

I don't know. In this country, it wouldn't surprise me, I am sorry to say. I am also sorry to say that if I were in the situation you describe, I doubt I would do anything to try and stop it, unless it came down to saving my own life, for this very reason.

---

This comment reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George trampled the little kids to escape what he thought was a fire. I would hope that I would do just the opposite. Thankfully most men I know (and most of the women, too) don't think like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deuce130

This comment reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George trampled the little kids to escape what he thought was a fire. I would hope that I would do just the opposite. Thankfully most men I know (and most of the women, too) don't think like you.

---

So, let me put it this way then. The scenario stipulates that I am committing a felony, one for which I could get imprisoned. My primary responsibility is to me and my family and to come home. I am NOT going to risk getting charged with said felony and wind up in front of a jury of idiots who can't see past the issue of having a gun in a school, until such time as the choice is either that or certain death. On top of that, in a school gunman situation, I am NOT going to prowling around the campus with a weapon because I would probably be mistaken for being the MWAG. Remember, you won't be wearing an identifiable uniform, you won't have a communication means to co-ordinate your efforts with the responders, who will be expecting the innocent to stay out of site.

So, instead of trying to insult me because I value MY life and MY family more than I value yours or someone else's, lets work together to get these bad laws redacted!

While I agree that most anything can be used as a weapon the issue is defending ones self from a BG with a gun. I guess if it's do or die I'll take on a shooter with a rolled up magazine but only a gun is equal against a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noway2

So, let me put it this way then. The scenario stipulates that I am committing a felony, one for which I could get imprisoned. My primary responsibility is to me and my family and to come home. I am NOT going to risk getting charged with said felony and wind up in front of a jury of idiots who can't see past the issue of having a gun in a school, until such time as the choice is either that or certain death. On top of that, in a school gunman situation, I am NOT going to prowling around the campus with a weapon because I would probably be mistaken for being the MWAG. Remember, you won't be wearing an identifiable uniform, you won't have a communication means to co-ordinate your efforts with the responders, who will be expecting the innocent to stay out of site.

So, instead of trying to insult me because I value MY life and MY family more than I value yours or someone else's, lets work together to get these bad laws redacted!

---

That's fine. But in the given hypothetical, that I am illegally carrying a firearm in a school (intentionally or unintentionally) and someone starts shooting schoolchildren - yours, mine, or anyone else's - I will get involved in whatever way I can in order to prevent children from being brutally murdered. I do alot of things where I'm not 100% sure of the outcome when I start. I'm not a wannabe, I'm not a mall ninja, I'm not Tackleberry in civilian clothes, I'm just a husband, father, and a human being. You can do as you wish.

Duece130 RIGHT ON!