How to legislate Gun Free Zone?

How to legislate Gun Free Zone?

This is a discussion on How to legislate Gun Free Zone? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I was trying to think of reasonable ways to write legislation in regard to gun free zones. I like clean legislation that will regulate itself ...

Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: How to legislate Gun Free Zone?

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644

    How to legislate Gun Free Zone?

    I was trying to think of reasonable ways to write legislation in regard to gun free zones. I like clean legislation that will regulate itself and give clear guidelines for people to follow. I might compile arguments for a letter to my legislators.

    One way that has been put out there is: to make property owners who make gun free zones liable for injuries sustained during a crime. They take away your right to defend yourself so they must take responsibility for your safety.

    Another is simply to eliminate "gun free zones" and allow concealed carry anywhere. If some incident occurs (printing or confrontation) you may be asked to leave on an individual basis.

    my idea:

    Property owners and Employers should be given the option to make a gun free zone, all they need to do is: have 24 hour sterile conditions: metal detectors, armed security, and x-ray....in other words, they must make a true gun free zone with 100% enforcement.

    Places like Disneyland and 6 Flags come to mind. The 6-flags I have been to pass everyone through metal detectors and search all bags pretty thoroughly. Does this sort of policy actually work? Should property owners and employers be given this option?

    I know this is a hot topic, so please keep your responses specific to legislation on how to deal with the gun free zone issue. Are there any other suggestions on how to legislate this issue? (banning "gun free zones" is a legit suggestion, feel free to argue for it)

    :)
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array friesepferd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    east TN
    Posts
    2,341
    there are two kinds of gun free zones.
    those made my the state = crap, should not be allowed
    but anyone can choose to put up a sign that says that their home/store/etc does not allow guns. now of course i dont like this. these people are idiots. but its their private property and they may make any rules they want as to who is allowed to be there. i just will simply choose not to.
    i believe the government should have no say on what we do, what we have, what we allow on our own properties, as long as it is not infringing on the rights of another

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    I wouldn't worry about it; such legislation will probably never see the light of day. i think first the Heller case must get a favorable review in SCOTUS, then all of the legal challenges must work through the courts before we can even think about legislation like that. It would be nice though, holding the owner of an establishment financially liable for disarming everybody during a mass shooting. Then this "We are not liable crap" would go away.....
    "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

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array friesepferd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    east TN
    Posts
    2,341
    yea, i dont think it would ever happen, but what WOULD be nice is that if an incident occurs, say in a store that is posted as gun free, and someone gets killed / hurt, then the store is liable (at least partially) for what happened, since they didnt allow whoever got hurt to have the ability to protect themselves.
    make NOT allowing guns a legal liability!

    edit: sorry edr9x23super! i read the rest of your post... great minds think alike!
    Wo die Notwehr aufhört, fängt der Mord an
    (Murder begins where self-defense ends)
    Georg Büchner

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array tns0038's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,169
    Florida does not have such silly laws…

    Interesting question:

    The other morning I noticed a TV commercial whereas an attorney was seeking clients who was hurt due to a commercial business allowing a customer to be hurt due to there negligence, or not providing protection.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array DrLewall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Drakes Creek, AR
    Posts
    958
    I only hope that the victims in the Mall shooting in NE file suit against the stores/mall there if only to open up some eyes!

  7. #7
    Member Array AlongcameJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    171
    nutz4utwo, Even though it is private property, it is also a business, where people gather to shop, etc. and where libilities need to be covered. You give them 2 logical options which is reasonable and cut and dry. They need to take responsibility for their decision if its not allowing concealed carry (like in a mall). I like your reasoning.

  8. #8
    Member Array dang.45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wherever I may wander...
    Posts
    315
    As others have noted, there are two parts to this - bans in or on 'state' property, and bans in or on private property.

    First, state property - I can think of arguments that could justify making places like a courthouse or police station a "gun-free zone", but other than that, there should be no bans on legally carried weapons on or in any state-owned or run facilities, especially places like state parks, etc. You know darned well that no government will ever take responsibility for protecting any given individual on public land or facilities, so the public should not be prohibited from protecting itself when there.

    Second, private property - unless you are for some reason forced to enter private property for some reason (and I can't think of a situation in which this would be the case), you always have the choice whether or not to be there. If you don't like whatever rules or conditions the property owner has, including a 'no weapons' policy, then you don't have to enter.

    This is not a property rights discussion board, so I won't try to convince those that don't see the obviousness of the above. I'll just say that private property rights are just as fundamental as the right to self-defense - rarely, if ever, can it be acceptable for either to be infringed. Asking you to dis-arm as a condition of entry into any private property does not infringe on your right to self-defense, as you are not obligated to enter that private property. It is your choice - dis-arm & be welcome or refuse & leave. Both are equally valid choices and we as responsible gun owners should respect the property owner's illogical & mis-guided choice to make the request.

    To sum up - governmentally imposed "gun-free zones" should not be allowed since no government entity will ever take responsibility for any individual's safety, but private "gun-free zones", while mis-guided & ineffective, must be honored because private property rights are just as foundational to our liberty as is our right to self-defense.
    "It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had a right to choose: his own." - John Galt, from Atlas Shrugged

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array friesepferd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    east TN
    Posts
    2,341
    its one thing to have the state say you cant carry on state owned property, its another thing for them to say you cant carry on private property!!!
    Wo die Notwehr aufhört, fängt der Mord an
    (Murder begins where self-defense ends)
    Georg Büchner

  10. #10
    Sponsor
    Array luvmy40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Youngstown, OH
    Posts
    1,866
    Quote Originally Posted by dang.45
    To sum up - governmentally imposed "gun-free zones" should not be allowed since no government entity will ever take responsibility for any individual's safety, but private "gun-free zones", while mis-guided & ineffective, must be honored because private property rights are just as foundational to our liberty as is our right to self-defense.
    I like the way you think!

    Now I'm going to play Devil's advocate...
    If a business can be held legally liable for injuries sustained on their property, or from their products, regardless of the fact that the injury may be due to the stupidity of the injured party, ie. McD's coffee burns or a slip/trip/fall, then said business owner should be held liable for injuries received due to a weapons ban.

    Now having said that, I don't believe that the famous coffee case was justified and I certainly don't think a business owner should be liable for conditions caused by nature. But an injury or condition that causes injury that can be directly attributed to negligence or purposeful dis-regard for safety on the part of the property owner, should be the owner's responsibility. I believe that posting a property as a "Gun Free Zone" would come under the negligence/ purposeful dis-regard category.

    $0.02

    I realize that this is more an opinion than a constructive criticism of the legislation in question, but then I'm not an attorney or a legislator. And for good reason, I'm not duplicitous enough for either heading.
    T*A*N*S*T*A*A*F*L
    The best things in life are not free.
    They are paid for with the blood of brave men and women!
    M&P Forum
    Ohioans For Concealed Carry
    Holsters

  11. #11
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by dang.45 View Post
    private property... you always have the choice whether or not to be there. If you don't like whatever rules or conditions the property owner has, including a 'no weapons' policy, then you don't have to enter.
    I see what you are getting at, but I don't think it reflects the way our society works. We all have to enter someone else's property daily. We work outside home, buy groceries... if this was the case, one can argue, "simply don't shop in stores that aren't gun friendly" I don't like the division this would cause in our society. This solution would draw pro-gun and anti's away from each other even though we are all fighting for the same goal of safety and security.

    If a hospital was private property and gun free, and you had an emergency, you might not have a choice where to take your business.

    I also think this sort of mixed policy leads to confusion about what is and is not legal. You can already see it in the confusing system we now operate under: schools are gun free, that is unless dropping off your child. Even though a shop might be posted gun free, it might not be. In Georgia, one must decide what a public gathering means to see if you can carry. You can't carry in a church, unless you have "good reason", and we are not sure what "good reason" is. Does one need to get a tape measure out to be sure you are outside 1000 feet of a school? UPS and Fedex are fine, but the post office is off limits.

    uniform, clear standards are important.

    private property rights are just as fundamental as the right to self-defense - rarely, if ever, can it be acceptable for either to be infringed.
    Very interesting point of view. It is much appreciated.

    I too agree that gov't should stay out of the way as much as possible. However, there are many ways that government regulates safety on private property. (and many of them are good ways)

    One that comes to mind are building codes. Government realizes that buildings can be dangerous from fire, earthquakes... and institutes rules that force you to build things safely.

    Similarly, firearms can be dangerous (in the wrong hands), and gov't has the power to regulate them on private property. This power has its limits (aka 2nd amendment), but it is certainly there. Things like keeping firearms away from minors and convicted felons, discharging your firearm in an unsafe manor...these things all regulate firearms even when they are on private property. I don't think anyone can argue they are wrong?

    There is a balance between allowing people their independence and rights, but managing the greater public safety at the same time. My question is fundamental to this: where does that balance lie with the use of "gun free zones"?

    I think those constitution framers were mighty smart...
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  12. #12
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by dang.45 View Post
    state property - I can think of arguments that could justify making places like a courthouse or police station a "gun-free zone", but other than that, there should be no bans on legally carried weapons on or in any state-owned or run facilities
    I totally agree.

    :)
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  13. #13
    Member Array spydad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    86
    I know CCW laws differ from state to state, but MS has churches/places of worship prohibited. All are private property--separation of church and state. I'm getting ready to write my legislator about having that portion of the statute removed(repealed).

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array glock27mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    clinton township
    Posts
    2,170
    michigan has a bill that seems to have stalled in the house(hb 4759 i believe)
    to try to do away with gun free zones.
    (note) please feel free to correct me if i oopsed this info,but if my reading
    was correct,that would be nice.
    (SHERIFF BUFORD T. JUSTICE) "what the hell is
    the world coming too"

    NRA LIFE MEMBER

    U.S. ARMY FT.SILL, OKLA.

  15. #15
    VIP Member
    Array nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    7,124
    One thing not to have is so many feet from a place, since in rural America, one does not have that option. You cannot drive/walk one block over to comply. The road and often the only road goes where it goes and is often the only road.

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. gun free zone kit
    By glock27mark in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 18th, 2008, 01:40 PM
  2. Gun free zone
    By tns0038 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 11th, 2008, 05:57 PM
  3. Hug free zone
    By GBS in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: October 31st, 2007, 08:28 PM
  4. Gun Free Zone
    By jahwarrior72 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 19th, 2007, 09:07 PM
  5. Another murder in a gun free zone
    By TN_Mike in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2007, 01:44 PM

Search tags for this page

gun free church zones

,

letter to my employer about their gun free zone

Click on a term to search for related topics.