and it should
This is a discussion on Gun free zones - liability within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Got this today - and don't think we have anything in another thread that I can see. I left the bottom part in re BOR ...
Got this today - and don't think we have anything in another thread that I can see. I left the bottom part in re BOR day - it seems an appropriate reminder to us all. Emphasis added is mine.
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. http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm.
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.
According to leading experts, “gun-free zones” are fraudulent, because no alternate means of security is provided, and even FBI-certified firearms owners cannot enter. This leaves only the criminal element armed, and free to wreak havoc without a meaningful deterrent.
Concealed-weapon laws enacted in most states were designed to counteract random shootings, but are defeated by the recklessly created zones that are anything but gun free.
As if to demonstrate the bill’s value, a private citizen with a CCW permit in Colorado shot and killed a madman intent on wiping out a congregation at church. The news media, behaving in a now-familiar manner, played down the incident, referring to the woman as a security guard. http://instapundit.com/archives2/012740.php
The Associated Press headline, “Megachurches expand use of security forces,” essentially hid what actually happened. The Uninvited Ombudsman, in a report due shortly, suggests a more descriptive headline of “CCW-Permit Holder Kills Murderer, Saves Lives.”
The bill language and background was mentioned and linked yesterday by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, and has increased interest in the bill, set to be introduced in Arizona in January. It was last introduced in Arizona in 2003, and Georgia also introduced a version of the personal-safety legislation.
You are encouraged to copy the model language at gunlaws.com and ask members of your state legislature to introduce this common-sense, life-saving bill.
This Saturday, Dec. 15, is Bill of Rights Day, a perfect time to gather with friends to read and contemplate the document that has done so much to advance the cause of freedom. A special event is planned in my state at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort at 2 p.m., following the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers awards luncheon. Details on my site under the “New Stuff” button.
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
Here is my reply from another forum I am a member of, when the subject was brought up. I guess I have not had the opportunity here yet.
Criminals don't read signs do they? Much as I hate to say it, but things like this generally happen in threes. I for one have increased my alert status after this tragedy. I actually carried double today. I've always paid attention to the posted signs, and know everywhere I cannot carry. I'd never want to risk my privilege for doing so. Everyone's home state that allows CCW have made their own rules to abide by. Sooner or later, insurance companies will be taking these issues to task and advising private property owners whether or not it is good practice to disallow law abiding citizens from carrying amongst their crowds. I guess all-in-all, it's going to take several hefty lawsuits before things change. Mall security, or surveillance monitors, if in existence, should be held partially liable if signs are posted willfully denying CCW on the property. Just my outlook on the subject. Hindsight is always 20/20.
AMEN, BROTHER! I say more power to them; if liberal wack-job politicos like Bloomberg can file frivolous lawsuits against gun store owners for their alleged transgressions, then the real victims of these shooting sprees should be able to seek compensation for being disarmed and murdered in a gun-free zone.
All I can say is Good Luck!
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
Persons/Companies canned and have been sued for violating civil rights. It is about time that they are held responsible for violating Second Amendment rights as well.
I think it's a great idea. Let these companies know that if they want to restrict our right to protect ourselves, and they can't protect us, they should be held responsible. Right now, they believe they can put up the signs with no consequence to themselves.
I've been saying for years that if a business prevents a CCW owner from carrying then it's high time they pay the costs for it. I don't like the idea of lawsuits but for some of the liberals that is all they understand.
Life member NRA since 1983
I carry a Colt Delta Elite 10mm in Milt Sparks VM2 with 2 extra magazines on my belt. This is normally worn on a belt under my bib overalls and works great for me. My wife carries a Walther PPS .40 w/Crossbreed holster.
not sure how they would enforce that.
so if anything bad happens there, they are responsible? or only if someone is there that would have been carrying or what?
Introduced in Arizona, eh? Glad to hear it. Too bad our Governor will just veto it like she does everything else gun-related.
This measure seems to me to be completely natural and reasonable as an extension of the store or facilities own policy.
No lawful citizen possessed guns allowed on site? Okay. You now are directly liable for any harm that might come to me whihc I may have otherwise been able to stop myself.
Considering a citizen is liable to a store for damages he/she might make or cause from their own action, the inverse being lawful and expected of a stores/facilities actions toward it's customers is not unreasonable.
I think it's a great idea: its utility will be not so much to provide for the collection of damages (since if you are killed because you were disarmed you can't enjoy money from those who disarmed you and failed to then protect you), but to point out the fallacy of GFZs and shake people out of the mode of thinking that they make any sense whatsoever.
Has anyone ever heard of a successful legal challenge on these grounds? I'd be surprised if this has never been attempted. It seems patently clear to me: forcible disarmament contributes to a climate of fear for the innocent, a climate of permissiveness toward criminal action and, in a growing number of cases, actual harm. "Wild West" has come again not because of the rise of guns ... but rather because the innocent have little means of defense against criminals. It's criminal to disallow people the means of their own defense.
Great idea. I'm going to send the bill text along with a "why not here?" blurb to my representatives.
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
NRA Life Member
According to some info I got via the Tennessee Firearms Asso., there have actually been some court cases where the court found businesses liable for not providing adequate security for their customers.
I don't know the details, but it would seem that there is some precident set here, although TN does not appear to have any general ruling that holds businesses that establish gun free zones liable for the consequences of their action.
It does seem very reasonable though, that if a business is going to insist on forcing customers to disarm, that the business must bear the responsibility for their security until the customer leaves their property and has a chance to re-arm themselves.
Although, I suspect, in the case of the mall shootings, the mall will pay substantial damages, if for no other reason than to avoid a high profile suit.
I'm too young to be this old!
Getting old isn't good for you!
We can only hope that the mall in question above, can be made the example..I too have sent a copy to my rep here and asked, Why not here?...