Defensive Carry banner

Interesting Concept

2K views 20 replies 21 participants last post by  SpringerXD 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Works for me!
 
#8 ·
It's encouraging to see that at least someone is trying to do something about the insanity of "Gun Free Zones". :wink:
 
#9 ·
I sort of figured something like this would be forthcoming out of the mall tragedies. I think it's only fair for property owners to make a decision as to if they want to be liable in those instances. These sort of laws should be up for legislation everywhere. I'd also like to see that convey to employee rights on company properties (such as parking lots), where firearms are technically not allowed or posted as such. Accountability is what it's all about. Arizona sure seems to be at the forefront of alot of CCW legislation. I hope it's catching.
 
#10 ·
This is a great idea, but making it illegal for a business to restrict your 2nd amendment rights would be even better. Perhaps if this catches on we can use it as a stepping stone to getting rid of "defenseless zones" all together.
 
#11 ·
Good idea...isn't the $$$$$$$$$$ (or the potential loss of some of it) that gets their attention EVERY time?
:yup::hand10::yup::hand10::yup::hand10:
 
#12 ·
The only aspect I think makes this worthwhile is not that the businesses were liable, but that it would make them back down from being restrictive.

So if we make businesses liable for the actions of 3rd parties, such as robbers, spree killers, etc., how long will it be before somebody demands CCW folks be required by law to carry mandatory liability insurance. I can see that if the insurance companies get pushed out of one realm, they will definitely encroach in another.

isn't the $$$$$$$$$$ (or the potential loss of some of it) that gets their attention EVERY time?
D'uh. That is what for-profit business is all about - money. It is the lifeblood of what keeps the business alive.

Personally, I don't see how a person or business can be made to be responsible for the actions of a 3rd party not of their ward, control, or employment. Why is a business responsible for the actions of a bad guy?

Also, given the premise...
Under such legislation, any person, business, organization, unit of government, etc. that prohibits firearms can be held liable for harm inflicted on a person who might otherwise have used a firearm in self-defense.
would this law just cover those folks who have permits (in states requiring permits) or anyone of age who could legally carry (in states where no permit is required), and their wards (e.g. children)? So, if you are a teenage customer unaccompanied by parents in a store and you are shot during a robbery, then you aren't covered because you would not otherwise have used a firearm in self-defense because the state doesn't allow you to carry.

Would you have to prove that you actually have a gun to use, but that it is left at your last location (such as in your car) where you could legally carry without restriction? In other words, if you have a CCW permit, is that enough to get you covered under the law or do you have to have a gun and prove it was specifically not on your person because you were in the restrictive business? If you leave home, say on a trip around the state, without a gun and go into a restrictive business and get shot by a robber, are you covered since you have a permit and own a gun even though you didn't bother to have it on the trip?

Perhaps if this catches on we can use it as a stepping stone to getting rid of "defenseless zones" all together.
It really scares me to think that gun owners consider themselves to be defenseless if they don't have a firearm on their person. I see the concept repeated time and time again on forums such as this, by participants at gun schools, and in speaking with folks at the range. If a gun is your only consideration for defense, and not having it means you are defenseless, there is a definite lack of preparedness on your part.

I don't consider myself as well armed without a gun, but certainly not defenseless. Considering yourself to be defenseless is the first administrative step to becoming a victim.
 
#16 ·
I do agree with this concept, and I sent an email to the NRA-ILA in support of helping to get it passed. To take away my ability to care for myself means that they have assumed it as their responsibility. That means not only for those who would be forbidden from taking care of themselves but also for all others who may have been protected by the people who could have been carrying guns. If you have first-aid or first-responder training and do not provide it you can be considered liable. If a business forbid their employees from providing life-saving care to customers (not realistic I know, just for argument) they would be liable for any deaths or serious results of their policy. If I recall the training properly, in Texas you are not just able to use deadly force to protect others in circumstances where it would be allowed, you are compelled. If I see someone in deadly peril from someone else and do nothing I could be held liable in court, as well as never forgiving myself.

It really scares me to think that gun owners consider themselves to be defenseless if they don't have a firearm on their person. I see the concept repeated time and time again on forums such as this, by participants at gun schools, and in speaking with folks at the range. If a gun is your only consideration for defense, and not having it means you are defenseless, there is a definite lack of preparedness on your part.

I don't consider myself as well armed without a gun, but certainly not defenseless. Considering yourself to be defenseless is the first administrative step to becoming a victim.
I believe a more appropriate term would be less well equiped, but that doesn't have the impact. I agree that I am never defenseless. I am pretty handicapped against an adversary with distance and superior firepower though.
 
#14 ·
Mandatory Accountability for Anti's sounds good to me. :congrats:
 
#15 ·
:congrats:I hope it happens,but the flood gates would open up if they did post and got robbed! If that became law,there would a box to check on your insurance app. Will you post or no?
 
#18 ·
Im proud to have been raised in that great state. :D
 
#19 ·
Interesting for sure... It runs some of the litigious bent of the anti's right back at 'em.

I'm not too sure how it would play in practice, though. I'd think the party limiting your right could show that surprise or some other factor would have negated your ability to defend yourself, or otherwise question your "reasonable" effectiveness in stopping the threat.

I'll be trying to think this one through, with all the implications, for a while...
 
#20 ·
What many don't realize about gun free zone signs in Az is this:

If the posted sign just says no guns/firearms allowed, it's not a legally binding sign and can legally be ignored. There is specific wording that has to be included [ and I think it has to do with mention of the Az statute ] for it to be enforceable by law enforcement if they are called to respond for violation of a gun free zone.

Brownie
 
#21 ·
Here's a possible twist on it. Make a law stating that all businesses must either:

1. Provide armed security guards at a ratio of one per every 3-4 customers.

2. Allow CCW.

Which route do you think they'll take?

:danceban:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top